ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3323/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Proposals for changes in the regulation of veterinary medicinal products

Proposals for changes in the regulation of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union (Revision 2001 Article 67 (b)) would mean significant changes for people working in the agricultural industry. One particular provision would make all animal medicines for farm livestock and horses available only on a veterinary prescription.

I agree that such medicines should be regulated, but would the Commission acknowledge that such a proposal would spell the end for the majority of agricultural merchants in the UK and would mean extra costs for farmers, who would be forced to deal solely with veterinary surgeons? Does the Commission believe that the imposition of this proposal might result in a black market in veterinary products?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-2913/01 by Mr Bowe(1).

As far as dispensing of veterinary medicines is concerned, the Commission would stress that its proposals to amend the pharmaceutical legislation address only the provisions relating to prescription. The Commission does not consider that its proposal to have a veterinary prescription required for dispensing veterinary medicinal products for food producing

animals would represent a significant change to the present situation in the Union. In fact, a prescription is already required for a significant number of categories of veterinary drugs, and the above mentioned proposal is aimed at replacing the current requirement for a prescription for those products in respect of which special precautions must be taken by the veterinarian in order to avoid any unnecessary risk to the consumer of foodstuffs obtained from treated animals.

No changes have been proposed to the existing Community rules on retail distribution of veterinary medicines. All retail distributors need to be authorised. However, the distribution system depends on the legislation of the Member States. Depending on the national rules in place, veterinary medicinal products may also be sold by pharmacists or other authorised persons upon the presentation of a relevant prescription.

The Commission therefore does not share the view that its proposal would necessarily spell the end for any category of retailers or extra costs for farmers. Similarly, appropriate control measures and adequate sanctions should be in place to prevent a black market in veterinary medicinal products.

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Provision of lifeguards

Is the Commission aware of a recent UK study into the number of children who drown in pools and in the sea in Member States of the EU every year?

In the light of this study, would the Commission consider initiating a systematic recording of figures in all Member States in the EU?

What plans does the Commission have to introduce a Regulation on the provision of lifeguards at public pools and beaches?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

The Commission has attempted to find the study referred to by the Honourable Member. The competent UK authorities have sent it two recent reports on drowning accidents produced for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)(1). However, these refer only to accidents in the domestic environment (home and garden), and to the situation in the United Kingdom.

One of these studies focuses on accidents in the garden to children under the age of five, while the other provides a more general analysis of the problem of drowning accidents in the home and garden.

On the basis of the data collected, both studies describe the main accident scenarios and make recommendations to limit the risks of domestic drowning accidents. They conclude that most accidents to very young children occur as a result of a lack of supervision.

The Commission has been unable to identify any study carried out in the United Kingdom or elsewhere with a more general scope covering drowning accidents to children in pools and in the sea, as referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

The Commission does not have any plans for a specific Community initiative involving the collection of information on drowning accidents to children in the Member States and the provision of lifeguards in public pools and on beaches. The Commission feels that these matters are the responsibility of the Member States and their local authorities. However, certain aspects of the

matter, namely those relating to the safety of services in tourist facilities in more general terms, can be covered by horizontal initiatives on the safety of services, a subject on which Parliament has recently asked the Commission to present a report and appropriate proposals in 2003.

(1) Drowning accidents in the garden involving children under five July 2000 URN00/906; Drowning in the home & garden June 2001 URN 01/903.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Maladministration by Greek insurance organisations

The Greek Ombudsman's annual report for 2000 states that maladministration is widespread among insurance organisations, and this seriously hampers the process of issuing pensions, especially in cases in which a person has paid contributions to successive schemes either within Greece or and this is often the case in Greece and other EU countries.

As a result of these delays, a large group of citizens mainly Greek immigrants and migrant workers are deprived of the right to be issued with their pension act in good time; this constitutes an indirect barrier to the free movement of workers, which is one of the basic principles and objectives of the European Union.

1. Has the Commission detected any similar cases of maladministration by Greek insurance organisations which hinder freedom of movement of workers in the European Union?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Greece complies with Community legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

The Commission has indeed received a number of complaints from various European citizens asking it to intervene in connection with a specific problem relating to the granting of certain social benefits, especially certain family benefits, on the basis of nationality. Having examined these complaints, it asked the Court to declare that, by excluding, through regulations or administrative practice, workers who are citizens of other Member States, on grounds of their nationality, Greece has violated Community law. The Court, in its judgment of 29 October 1998 (in Case C-185/96, Commission/Hellenic Republic), censured Greece, holding that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

Following this judgment, the Greek authorities amended their regulations on this matter.

The Commission is not aware of any other cases of maladministration in Greek social security institutions in the situations referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2905/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Regional funding for training

Can the Commission say whether there are any regions in Italy which, despite receiving funding for training from the European Social Fund, do not have any laws governing the use of such funding? Can it also ascertain whether part of the funding is used by some regions to finance the training of categories of profession which are not recognised by any law and for which there are no job opportunities?

If this is true, what decision will the Commission take on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Under the Italian constitutional order, employment and training are the responsibility of the regions.

All regions in Italy receive funding for training from the European Social Fund, under Objectives 3 (centre and north) and 1 (south and islands). In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), all regions have been provided with administrative instruments (regional operational programme, programme complement, etc.) governing access to these funds.

In particular, the programme complements which describe in detail the content of the actions were adopted by the programme's Monitoring Committees, which consist of all relevant partners (social partners, provincial authorities, etc.) who are in a position to verify the relevance of the choice made. The same applies to the selection criteria for training measures.

Consequently, in order to spend the funds awarded, it is imperative that the regions in receipt of such financial assistance create implementation mechanisms (circulars, guidelines).

In addition, in order to measure the effectiveness of assistance from the European Social Fund in terms of beneficiaries' ability to enter or return to the labour market, Community action is subject to ex-ante, in itinere and ex-post evaluation.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Granting of aid to Coface

The Commission has granted various subsidies to the Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union (Coface). It appears that these subsidies will no longer be granted in the coming budgetary year, 2002.

Can the Commission say whether this aid is indeed to disappear in the coming year and if so, why it was removed from the Community budget? What other EU subsidies might Coface receive in the future?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

In accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of May 1998 which found that the Commission had no legal basis for taking action in the area of family policy, among others, the Commission was obliged to put an end to the general or operating subsidies granted to a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Community (Coface).

Nevertheless, these NGOs remain eligible for the organisation of specific studies or projects as part of programmes conducted by the Commission, provided that they submit applications in response to the Commission's calls for projects for the implementation of these programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2001)

Subject: EU's contribution to the problem of waiting lists in national health systems

The Commission has just made a number of fitting statements in support of the United Kingdom initiative to send patients to other Community countries in order to reduce waiting lists. However, the problem of waiting lists is widespread throughout the EU, as can be seen from the situation in Spain, where a number of people have died after long waiting lists prevented them from undergoing operations in time.

I drew the Commission's attention to the seriousness of this problem in my Written Question E-2415/00(1), which Mr Byrne answered on 25 September 2000. In his answer, the Commissioner cited the lack of a Community mandate for health matters pursuant to Article 152 of the Treaty and added that Commission action to help to mitigate the problem of waiting lists would be taken as part of the Community action programme in the field of public health.

Bearing in mind the substance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case-157/99, which recognises that patients have a right to seek treatment in other countries if systems in their place of origin are overloaded, would the Commission be prepared to propose an initiative geared to Community coordination in order to solve the problem of waiting lists through a recommendation addressed to the Member States?

What specific measures will the Commission take as part of the Community action programme to promote the exchange of patients between Community countries?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 195.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2559/01 and E-2586/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2415/00(1). The Commission is well aware of the problem of waiting lists for patients in several Member States. The new public health programme is currently being discussed by the Parliament and the Council. Once adopted, it will provide an opportunity to monitor and analyse developments in Member States' health systems.

The situation as regards actions to be undertaken in the context of Article 152 (ex Article 129) of the EC Treaty remains unchanged. Community actions in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibility of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

All the ramifications of the case law gradually built up by the Court of Justice concerning the reimbursement of cross-border health care costs are at present being examined by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Progress with implementation of the CSF programmes and Cohesion Fund projects

Will the Commission produce a detailed comparative table showing the progress made to date in implementing (commitments, payments) the programmes under the CSF and the Cohesion Fund in the four beneficiary countries? Is the Commission satisfied with the progress of the programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the table of commitments and payments under the Structural Funds during the 1994-1999 programming period for the four Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund. That table gives figures for the Cohesion Fund, but for 1993-2001.

The actual rate of implementation of commitments, which represents the part of Community assistance actually paid, can be regarded as an approximate, but not definitive, indicator of the state of progress in implementing the programmes. This rate is indirectly linked to the actual rate of implementation of assistance on the ground.

For the Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, the rate of implementation of commitments under the Structural Funds programmes, and therefore the actual rate of implementation of these programmes on the ground, is above the Community average.

The implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is lower than that of the Structural Funds programmes. However, these rates are not comparable because the period under consideration is different. Assistance under the Cohesion Fund is project-based throughout the programming period; a significant share of the payments made in 2000 and 2001 consists of either the balances of the previous projects or advances on new decisions; it therefore results in a fall in this rate. In addition, the rules concerning payments under that Fund are more directly connected with the actual implementation of assistance on the ground.

The overall implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is, however, satisfactory, with the rate in Ireland and Portugal being higher than in Greece and Spain.

If a level of implementation of commitments of under 80 % is regarded as indicating delay, the number of programmes concerned, under the various Community Support Frameworks, would be as follows: 13 programmes out of 53 in Greece, 12 programmes out of 98 in Spain, 4 programmes out of 33 in Portugal and no delay for the 18 programmes in Ireland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: European riot police force

Following the events at the Genoa Summit, the German Interior Minister, Otto Schily, and his Italian counterpart, Claudio Scaiola, proposed setting up a European riot police force (along the lines of the European border police) and a database of protesters who support the use of violence. The same idea was recently endorsed by the German Chancellor, Mr Schröder, who proposed setting up an operational force with executive powers within Europol. These proposals have created confusion and brought forth negative reactions in all the Member States.

On 8 June 2001, at the Europol conference held in The Hague, Commissioner Vitorino expressed the view that Europe and the Member States should begin to think in more practical detail about the role of Europol and Eurojust and relations between the two, since Europol has no executive powers and is not subject to judicial control.

Does the Commission intend to take this idea on board as part of overall Community policy to combat terrorism and crime by taking practical measures to set up a special European riot police force? Or does it believe, on the contrary, that the measures it intends taking to develop direct operational cooperation between the Member States' police authorities and strengthen Europol's powers are sufficient to fight increasing lawlessness and violence?

In the Commission's view, how can police action be strengthened at European level without affecting civil rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

In relation to the question regarding the creation of a European riot police force, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the response given by the Commission to Written Question E-2476/01 by Mrs Karamanou(1).

As to the fight against terrorism, after the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 a special Justice and Home Affairs (JAI) Council was held on 20 September 2001. It agreed on a comprehensive list of concrete measures to strengthen cooperation and enhance the fight against terrorism, among them the creation of a special counter-terrorism unit within Europol. Europol, however, does not have any investigative powers. It may contribute to the fight against terrorism by facilitating information exchange between Member States and providing analytical capacity.

In view of the conclusions of the JHA Council meetings of 20, 27 and 28 September 2001, as well as those of the extraordinary European Council of 21 September 2001, the joint Ecofin-JAI Council and the extraordinary JAI Council of 16 October 2001, and the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government on 19 October 2001 in Gent, the Commission is optimistic that the Union will succeed in the fight against the various forms of serious crimes we have been recently confronted with. The Commission does not have any reason to believe that the Union's level of civil rights will be affected.

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 137.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Import subsidies for Uzbekistan

Products from the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan are subject to a levy of 10,5 % upon importation into the European Union. Yet businesses from Uzbekistan are permitted to make use of the so-called GSP FORM A, by analogy with businesses from Bangladesh, Burma and Cambodia. In order fully to support the socio-economic development of Uzbekistan, it would be appropriate to apply all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, to imports of products from this Central Asian republic into the European Union.

1. Why are not all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, applicable to imports of products from Uzbekistan, by analogy with the arrangement for products from Bangladesh, Burma and Cambodia?

2. Will the Commission apply all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, to imports of products from Uzbekistan, in view of the precarious socio-economic situation in this Central Asian republic? If not, why does the Commission refuse to apply all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, to imports of products from Uzbekistan?

Answer given b y Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

Uzbekistan is a beneficiary country of the European Union' Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP) and thus enjoys the tariff preferences laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1998 to 31 December 2001(1). Preferential access to the Community market is limited to products originating in beneficiary countries, and proof of origin has to be provided by a certificate of origin Form A. Shipments accompanied by a valid certificate of origin Form A enjoy all the advantages available under the GSP.

The GSP provides, however, different arrangements, and the most favorable of these arrangements is granted only to Least Developed Countries (LDC), recognized as such by the United Nations, based on criteria such as a low income, weak human resources and a low level of economic diversification(2). Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar are on the United Nations list of LDCs. However, GSP benefits have been withdrawn from Myanmar.

Uzbekistan is not a LDC and therefore entitled only to the general arrangements of the GSP. It enjoys the same benefits as any other beneficiary country of these arrangements.

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(2) http://www.unctad.org/en/pub/ldcprofiles2001.en.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3133/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 November 2001)

Subject: Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes

Having regard to the opinion of the Advocate-General, delivered on 20 September 2001, on the preliminary ruling on the invalidity of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 925/1999(1) which restrict the use of aircraft at European airports in the interests of protection against noise, given that this Regulation was based, curiously and questionably, on design criteria rather than on performance criteria, and in view of the fact that we may not pursue design criteria, as distinct from performance criteria, which favour one jet-engine manufacturer over another, could the Commission please indicate whether it will be proposing the repeal or amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes?

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission has noted the opinion of the Advocate-General of 20 September 2001 on the compatibility of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993)(1) with Community law. It awaits the decision of the Court of Justice with interest.

The Commission has no intention of drawing conclusions before that decision. Independently of that decision, the Commission adopted on 28 November 2001 a draft directive implementing the recent decision of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on measures concerning aircraft noise.

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.