ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/98

by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Compatibility of commissions decumuls (farmland management committees) with Community law

In France, when farmers decide to increase the acreage they farm, and the new acreage, depending on the department, is more than two or three times the statutory minimum, they must first obtain permission from a farmland management committee.

Can the Commission say whether such committees exist in any other Member States, and if so, which ones?

Is the existence of these committees consistent with Community law, and in particular, with the freedom of establishment principle?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1998)

The Commission is not aware of arrangements or procedures in the other Member States comparable to the commissions de cumuls mentioned by the Honourable Member, which are used in France to control increases in the size of agricultural holdings.

The Commission would point out, however, that Community legislation in general and the application of the common agricultural policy in particular do not in any way affect the powers of Member States to adopt arrangements and procedures to monitor developments on agricultural holdings, and their extension in particular, as part of a national land-use planning policy, for instance or, more specifically, as part of measures to encourage the installation of young farmers.

Based on the information available to the Commission, these arrangements and procedures do not run counter to the principle of freedom of establishment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3090/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Planned N-Viro Sewage Works - Stambridge

Can the Commission investigate the N-Viro fertiliser process in respect of dangers to public health, and state whether this product has been tested and proved safe for agricultural land use? Anglian Water is proposing to build a new sewage works in my constituency which will use this process, and there are naturally concerns regarding a product about which little is known and which could prove dangerous to public health. Could the Commission also state whether this N-Viro process is used in other countries in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The treatment of urban waste water, imposed under Council Directive 91/271/EEC(1) of 21 May 1991, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC(2) of 27 February 1998, produces sewage sludge. Article 14 of Directive 91/271/EEC stipulates that such sludge should be re-used whenever appropriate.

In this connection, Article 6 of Council Directive 86/278/CEE(3) of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, stipulates that the sludge must be treated before being used in agriculture. The aim of this treatment is to reduce the fermentable properties of the sludge as well as the risks to human health and the environment. In particular, it consists in eliminating the pathogenic micro-organisms that may be contained in the sewage sludge. It should be noted that, under this same Article 6, the use of untreated sludge may be authorised if the sludge is injected or worked into the soil. To the extent that it guarantees an adequate level of non-toxicity vis-à-vis pathogens and micro-contaminants (notably heavy metals) and given its organic improvement potential and beneficial fertilising properties, sewage sludge may be genuinely advantageous for certain types of agricultural soil.

The N-Viro process referred to by the Honourable Member appears to be a sludge-treatment process. The Commission is currently gathering information on this process, notably with a view to checking whether it is conducive to the attainment of the objectives indicated above.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.

(3) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3874/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Report on EU aid for Yasser Arafat

According to an EU report which has been leaked to the public, aid approved by the European Union to provide support for poor districts in Gaza and the West Bank may have been used to build homes for close associates of Yasser Arafat. The report claims that as much as FM 115 million has been spent on unexplained projects.

What measures does the Commission plan to take to check the truth of the allegations made in the report referred to above? And what steps does it plan to take to demand the return of misappropriated EU aid should the suspicions be confirmed?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 1999)

The Community is the first world donor to the Palestinians. The Community budget and the Member States provide 54 % of total assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Some press articles have recently questioned the way in which one Community financed project has been implemented, concerning support given to the Palestinian housing council (PHC).

The project was conceived right after the Gulf war, under exceptional political, economic and social circumstances. The main objectives were to provide housing for 2 000 families (about 12 000 people), create jobs (over 30 000 man-months), inject investment into the depressed Palestinian economy, create a revolving fund for further housing construction and stimulate a downstream multiplier effect for small business. The project has achieved results. Over 2 000 apartments have been built and a revolving fund has been established for further construction. As many as 30 700 man-months of construction works have been created so far.

A financial audit of the PHC project was made in July 1998. It states that no financial irregularities were found in the project and that the majority of the objectives of the project have been met (promotion of the housing development, encouragement of a balanced approach to meet economic and social needs, provision of employment, stimulation of internal economic and social needs, development of management and financial skills and administration, and encouragement of training in construction). One of the objectives, namely keeping the cost of construction very low, was not attained. The financial audit states that no Community funds should be reimbursed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Digital input and output sockets on video cameras

A digital video camera purchased, for example, in Singapore, which has the same television system as in Denmark, is equipped with the international standard interphase IEEE1394 which in practice means that it is possible, among other things, to playback the recorded programme digitally onto a hard disk as well as play the signal digitally from the hard disk back to the camera after final editing. Although the cameras are identical to look at, the latter operation is not possible if the camera is purchased in the EU since the cameras are programmed differently.

On what grounds did the Commission decide that digital video cameras sold within the EU should not have the international standard interphase IEEE1394 input socket?

Furthermore, what is the reason for the 14 % import duty imposed on digital video cameras with digital recording as against 4,9 % duty on cameras without the digital recording option?

In the event of quota arrangements existing for digital video cameras, does it consider this to be reasonable when it is borne in mind that much of the technological development in this area takes place outside the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The Commission has not taken a decision whereby digital electronic consumer equipment such as digital video cameras fitted with the IEEE 1394 interface cannot be imported or marketed in the Community. Nor has it decided to require that such equipment should be fitted with that type interface. Indeed, manufacturers and retailers are free to use whatever digital interface, if any, they consider to be most suitable for the market concerned.

With regard to the tariff treatment of digital video cameras the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-3811/97 by Mrs Hawlicek(1) concerning customs discrimination against camcorders with input sockets. Video cameras with plugs for the recording of television programmes receive the same tariff treatment as video recorders, which means a normal rate of duty of 14 % in conformity with the Community's common customs tariff. Video cameras without plugs for the recording of television programmes cannot replace video recorders and such products are subject to a tariff treatment similar to that of other cameras resulting in a normal rate of duty of 4,9 %.

The fact that a product is digital and works in conjunction with a computer does not change its tariff treatment. Hence, this reply is also valid for digital video cameras.

Finally the Commission would point out that digital video cameras are not subject to a quota arrangement.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/98

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

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Counterfeiting and piracy

On 22 October 1998 the Commission announced the publication of a Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market, with which it launched wide-ranging consultations on the matter with interested parties in the Member States.

What kind of initiatives might the Commission consider implementing in accordance with existing legislation, once the said consultations have been completed?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3664/98 and E-3665/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

One of the aims of the Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market(1) is to assess the economic impact of this phenomenon on the internal market. The assessment will be based on the information provided by interested parties (in particular, undertakings, owners of intellectual property rights and professional organisations) in response to the questions asked in the Green Paper. The Honourable Member will be aware that the Green Paper contains detailed questions on the economic and social effects of counterfeiting and piracy in the internal market both for undertakings (loss of market share, loss of jobs, drop in sales) and for economies (drop in investments, undeclared employment, loss of tax revenue). The answers from the interested parties should give the Commission a clearer picture of the effects of counterfeiting and piracy on the European economy.

With regard to the initiatives the Commission might consider at the end of this period of consultation, it is still too early to give the Honourable Member any details, since the consultation has not yet been completed. However, the Commission does not a priori exclude any form of intervention, nor favour one method of combating counterfeiting and piracy over another. Since the measures considered in the Green Paper are very diverse, any initiatives the Commission might take would not necessarily be of a legislative nature, but might, for example, comprise financial support for action taken against counterfeiting and piracy, or organisational or administrative measures, or even incentives or facilitation measures.

(1) COM(98) 569 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Financial scandal in Oberhausen, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany, involving economic aid funds for the HDO Media Centre

1. Is the Commission aware that EU funds, amongst others, were used for the construction of the HDO Media Centre in Oberhausen?

2. Was the Media Centre, deemed to be a prestige project for the economic restructuring of the Ruhr area, subsidized from the EU Structural Funds?

If so, under which Objective and for what amount?

3. Is the Commission aware that the German Public Prosecutor's Office is carrying out an investigation in this connection on the grounds that funds allocated to subsidize the project may have been embezzled?

4. What conclusions does the Commission draw from all this?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1998)

The HDO media centre in Oberhausen has indeed been subsidised with funds from the European Regional Development Fund.

The subsidy was granted under Objective 2 and paid in two stages. The assistance from the ERDF in the first phase (1989-91) came to DM 1 932 444 and the assistance in the second phase (1992-93) came to DM 415 346. This assistance was confined to covering the costs incurred during the start-up phase of the project. Subsequent investment costs, i.e. nearly DM 100 million, were not part-financed by the ERDF.

The Commission has been informed about the legal proceedings started against two managers of the company responsible for operating the technology centre, but these seem - as far as is know at present - to be linked to other financial operations. The legal action appears to concern only the investment costs of the project, all of which were financed from national funds.

The ERDF assistance towards part-financing these projects was paid to the company owning the capital (Besitzgesellschaft) and not the operating company (Betriebsgesellschaft). When the Bezirksregierung in Düsseldorf (the county authorities and highest local administration) came to check the certificates attesting the final use of these funds, it found no irregularity or serious anomaly when clearing the accounts. The doubts expressed in May 1993 by the Landesrechnungshof (Court of Auditors of the Land) when making its auditing checks on the first stage were entirely cleared up. The Landesrechnungshof declared the auditing process closed on 15 September 1995. However, the Commission will be closely following further developments in the media centre affair.

If the German authorities find during their inquiries that the irregularities detected also involve the Community assistance, they will be required to notify the Commission of the details under Commission Regulation (EC) 1681/94 of 11 July 1994(1). If they were to do so, the Commission would then take the necessary measures.

(1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3224/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Milk production

The Italian government has made very heavy penalty payments to the European Union as a result of declaring a higher level of milk production than the special reference quantity. The government has not yet made the compensatory payments due since 1995, which has resulted in a considerable reduction in producers' liquidity (the equivalent of LIT 4 000 billion), as those purchasing the milk deduct the relevant levy pending payment of compensation. For 1997-1998, the quantity of milk marketed declared by purchasers is substantially below the SRQ.

These interconnected facts give the impression that the domestic market is distorted and that the system of competition between countries has been flouted to the detriment of milk producers in the Po Valley.

In view of the foregoing:

1. Does the Commission consider that it has scrupulously implemented all the initiatives designed to ensure the Italian government operates in accordance with the correct procedures?

2. Does the Commission consider that private and/or public national and Community bodies could have exploited the chaotic situation created by the Italian government for their own benefit in defiance of the principle of free competition?

3. Does the Commission agree that it is now essential to place the Italian system of administering and controlling milk production under Community supervision?

4. Does the Commision agree that the huge sums retained for various reasons by the purchasers, which amount to about 50 % of the value of the Italian milk market, give them an unfair advantage in terms of competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1998)

1. Yes. Since 1984, the Commission has taken action using all the means available to it. It is sufficient in this regard to point out the infringement procedures brought against Italy in 1985, 1988, 1995 and most recently on 12 January 1998. Furthermore, the Commission reduced its advances on agricultural expenditure each time Italy failed to comply with the time limit for paying the levy due to the Commission.

2. The Commission is not in a position to reply. However, the one certainty where free competition in a market regulated by quotas is concerned is that Community legislation must be complied with where the special reference quantity is exceeded.

3. Member States are responsible for managing and monitoring the milk quota system at national level. The Commission has the powers to check that the system is working, especially during the clearance of accounts exercise and as part of its responsibilities to check that Community law is being correctly applied. The Commission has neither the powers nor the right to take the place of a Member State in managing or monitoring national milk production.

4. The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member and would suggest that he look at its recent reply to his Written Question P-3146/98(1).

(1) See page 32.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Use of child labour in Europe

According to estimates by the Economic and Social Committee, there are more than 5 million under-aged children working in Europe. Most of these children work in areas such as pornography, the drugs trade and sex tourism.

In the light of the above, what does the Commission propose to do to investigate the real extent of the use of child labour in Europe? How is the Commission seeking by means of Community policies to help in the struggle to eradicate child labour?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Commission wholeheartedly condemns all forms of child labour, in particular those mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Council Directive 94/33/CE of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work(1) requires the Member States to take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. They must ensure that young people are protected against economic exploitation and against any work likely to harm their safety, health or physical, mental, moral or social development or to jeopardise their education. This Community directive was to be incorporated into the legislation of the Member States by 22 June 1996, which means that the Member States are obliged to implement all measures needed to ensure effective application of these provisions.

The joint action of 24 February 1997(2) requires the Member States to criminalise and to punish the sexual exploitation of children, including the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity, the exploitative use of a child in prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities, including pornographic performances and materials.

Furthermore, Europol within its mandate on trafficking in human beings is also active in the fight against such sexual exploitation in co-operation with law enforcement agencies in the Member States.

The Commission also runs the STOP programme which supports public authorities in the fight against trafficking in children and their sexual exploitation, and the Daphne programme which supports non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the fight against all forms of violence towards children, including sexual exploitation.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2) OJ L 63, 4.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/98

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

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug

It has been established that the "millennium bug", a problem also known as the "year 2000 effect", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips.

These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved.

Has the Commission envisaged organising a seminar of any kind on awareness of this potential problem and how it can be prevented?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 1999)

The problems associated with the millennium bug have been widely discussed during the past few years in the Community, and particularly during 1998, in many different channels of communication, including press, television, and conferences. Most Member States have already carried out awareness campaigns, or plan to do so in the near future. In such circumstances, it is not clear that a Commission awareness campaign could offer significant added value. There are also practical issues to be taken into account arising from national and local specificities.

The Commission's Year 2000 world wide web site (http:/www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro) provides access to a wealth of international information on the problem and how to take action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/98

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: German campaign to promote the sale of flowers

In accordance with Regulation No 2275/96 of 22 November 1996(1) the European Union finances measures in the live plants and floricultural products sector. The funds available are used to finance the German government's campaign "Flowers - the finest language in the world".

1. What guarantees are there that the funds are used to increase sales of European flowers, thereby fulfilling an environmental objective in preventing unnecessary transport, and creating jobs regionally, thereby fulfilling a social objective?

2. What criteria are there for what is contained in advertising in this connection? Does the substance of the attached information booklet match these criteria?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 1999)

1. The objective of Community promotion of flowers is to increase the consumption of flowers and live plants grown in Europe.

2. Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 803/98 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products(2) stipulates that the list of selected measures is to be drawn up, in particular, on the basis of the coherence of the strategies presented, the merits of the proposed measures, the expected impact of their implementation and the producer groups' capacity to implement the measures and the guarantees presented as to the groups' efficiency and representative nature. The Member States are to give preference to measures to be implemented in the territories of several Member States.

The Commission will reply directly to the Honourable Member regarding the second part of his second question, since it has only just received the brochure in question.

(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998.