ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Slate imports into the EU

In its reply to my Written Question E-1580/98(1), the Commission provided figures on Community slate imports from developing countries in 1996.

Can the Commission list all the countries which have exported slate to the EU in 1997 and 1998 and give details of the volume of exports for each of them, and of the level of customs duty to which each of those Community imports was subject?

Can the Commission say what is the significance of the classification of those import figures as eligible and preferential?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

In 1997 Community imports of slate (combined nomenclature codes 6803 00 10 and 6803 00 90, Commission Regulation (EC) 2261/98 of 26 October 1998 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(2)) from non-Community countries totalled 30 263 tonnes, worth [fmxeuro] 13,6 million.

A detailed list of the imports broken down by exporting country is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In 1997 the full rate of import duty on slate from non-Community countries was 2,5 % (2,1 % in 1998 and 1,7 % in 1999).

Under Council Regulation (EC) 3281/94 of 19 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995 to 1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries(3), slate is classified as a non-sensitive product (Part IV of Annex I) for which customs tariff duties are suspended in their entirety (Article 2(4))where the slate originates in one of the countries qualifying for the scheme (Annex III). The origin of products is determined under Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(4).

The countries eligible for the generalised preference scheme that export slate to the Community are Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa, Syria and Thailand.

Under the graduation mechanism (Article 5(1) of Regulation 3281/94), on 1 January 1996 the preferential margin was abolished for China, which is now subject to the standard non-Community rate of duties.

Imports of a value of [fmxeuro] 5,87 million were eligible to benefit from the generalised preference scheme. Of these, imports worth [fmxeuro] 3,49 million actually were imported under the scheme.

A preferential rate of 0 % is applied to countries under preferential agreements other than the generalised preference scheme. These countries are Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Syria, and Turkey. Statistics on imports from countries outside the generalised preference scheme do not distinguish between imports benefiting from a preferential rate of duties and those to which the full rate is applied.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 145.

(2) OJ L 292, 30.10.1998.

(3) OJ L 348, 31.12.1994.

(4) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 308/99 by David BOWE Radioactive waste



Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0088



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0308/99 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1999) Subject: Radioactive waste Does the Commission envisage a programme to determine the location of licenced sources of radiation in order to prevent lost or stolen sources from entering the recycling stream?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0378/99

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Agonising death of dogs and cats in Asia

Recent television reports have claimed that in Thailand, China and the Philippines dogs and cats are strangled painfully and slowly in abattoirs for their meat and especially their skins. It can be shown that a large proportion of the skins are exported to Europe to be made into coat collars, wallet covers and thermal blankets.

Is the Commission aware of this unacceptable origin of imported dog and cat skins? What counteraction is it considering? Is it considering a ban on imports of dog and cat skins and leather products from these countries?

Should it not also be made clear to consumers how these skins and leather products are obtained, by requiring appropriate labelling, for example?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-40/99 by Mrs Maij-Weggen(1) on this subject.

There are no Community rules on labelling of fur of cats and dogs and products prepared using such fur.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 14.
(2000/C 27 E/046) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/99
by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Video surveillance of employees
It has become increasingly common for employers to use video surveillance, not only to monitor
customers but also their own employees. It has even got to the point that many employees are undersurveillance outside the workplace. By hiring private detectives, employers keep their employees undersurveillance both during and outside working hours.
Does the Commission not take the view that such a practice constitutes an unacceptable infringement of
employees rights which unnecessarily casts them in a suspicious light?
Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(15 September 1999)
The Commission is aware of the use of technical devices such telephone-tapping and video surveillance in
the workplace for the purpose of monitoring the conduct or work performance of employees.
At Community level, there is no specific provision on the surveillance of employees in Directive 95/46/EC
of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (
1).
At international level, the 1996 International labour organization (ILO) code of practice on the protection
of worker data (2) does not exclude the monitoring of workers but it clearly restricts it. Monitoring is
subject to two conditions. First, it can only be conducted if the workers concerned are informed in advanceof the employers intentions. Secondly, employers cannot simply choose the method and means ofmonitoring that they consider to be most suitable for their aims, but they should take into considerationthe consequences for the privacy of workers and give preference to the least intrusive means ofsurveillance.
In the case of secret or continuous monitoring, the code has taken a very restrictive approach. Continuous
monitoring is limited to cases in which surveillance is necessary in order to deal with specific problemsrelated to health and safety or to the protection of property. Secret monitoring is only accepted as long asspecific provisions of national law foresee it.
The Commission is currently analysing, in the framework of the protection of privacy of employee data,
Member States legislation on this matter.
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
(2) Code of practice on the protection of workers personal data, Doc MEWP/1996/5.
(2000/C 27 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/99
by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Commission report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road
transport
In its report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport
(COM(97) 698 final), the Commission notes that the level of checks and the incidence of penaltiesimposed for offences vary extremely widely between the Member States. Of over 1 million offencesdetected throughout the EU, Germany accounts for over 900 000.C 27 E/40 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0110/99

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Discrimination in France against road transport operators of other nationalities

1. Can the Commission state when the investigation, announced in answer to Written Questions E-2607/97 and E-2930/97 on 17 October 1997(1), into discriminatory provisions in national legislation in respect of checks on foreign transport operators will be complete, and when the outcome will be made known?

2. Is the Commission aware that in France when checks are carried out on drivers sums of FRF 20 000 to FRF 24 000 have to be paid on the spot and, if drivers refuse, the vehicles are towed away?

3. Does the Commission agree that Article 26 of the French Highway Code, on the basis of which these amounts are levied, is exactly the same as the Belgian legal provision which the Court of Justice regards as discriminatory? Quite apart from the investigation, would it not be advisable to suggest to France that it modify its rules?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 1999)

1. The Commission is preparing a report to the Council on the effectiveness and uniformity of checks organised by the Member States to implement Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport(2). Part of this report will consider the penalties involved. There is still a number of outstanding contributions to be received from Member States to allow the Commission to undertake this exercise and a further reminder has been issued. In the interim the Commission is examining returns in preparation for the 1995-1996 report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85(3) in relation to evidence of possible discriminatory practices.

2. The Commission understands that under French law in cases of serious infringements, such as falsification of documents and major tachograph offences, fines of up to FRF 200 000 may be imposed, with non-payment resulting in immobilisation of the vehicle. Since the fines relate to very serious offences, they would correspond to the Community policy that penalties should be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

3. Article 26 of the French law no 95-96 of February 1995 is completely different to the Belgian provision in the Royal Decree of 12 July 1989 on the levying and lodging by way of deposit of a sum of money upon detection of certain road transport offences, mentioned by the Honourable Member. The French provision relates to the obligation on drivers to carry with them a "document de suivi", an obligation which the French are currently not applying to international transport.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 325, 29.11.1988.

(3) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/99

by Alexander Falconer (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Costs of EU information services

What are the annual costs and total costs to the European Union since they started, including staff time, research, development, programming, hardware (distributors' and users'), promotion, training, travel and overheads of all the 50-odd databases listed in document CB-58-90-425-EN-C as being produced by CEC, and of the transmission systems such as MIDAS, MIDAS-NET, CELEX, CELEX2 and of the systems to replace CELEX?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
envisages the despatch of an international team to investigate alleged violations of international humani-
tarian law of the type to which the honourable members rightly draw attention.
(2000/C 27 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/99
by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission
(22 September 1999)
Subject: Unfair exclusion of a soprano from the National Academy of St Cecilia
Mrs Marína Mauro, a soprano who has worked for the National Academy of St Cecilia for many years, has
not had her contract renewed and has been given no justification. This eventuality is envisaged only if staffhave been the cause of artistic, professional or disciplinary disputes. The sopranos right to be employedderives from Article 1(3) of the CCNL (collective wage agreement) which states that artistes who havetaken part in the annual selection process in three consecutive years and proved themselves suitable  andhence were given contracts for each season in those three years  take precedence in the subsequentseasons, without having to take part in the annual selection process organised by the Academy. Mrs Maurohas also ascertained that other sopranos have been taken on and been given a contract for the next threeyears although they were lower down the list of suitable candidates.
Can the Commission say whether it does not consider that:
1. Mrs Mauro has been the victim of discrimination;2. her unfair exclusion for the coming academic year infringes her acquired rights, thereby damaging her
personal and professional image as a singer;
3. there is an urgent need to reinstate Mrs Mauro in her role as member of the choir, without her having
to undergo further selection procedures for auxiliary staff who have not acquired any rights ofseniority?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(26 October 1999)
The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that there is no Community rule governing
the conditions for the renewal of fixed-duration employment contracts.
Neither does the case in question come within the remit of Article 13 (ex Article 6(a)) of the EC Treaty
(anti-discrimination). In the absence of any link with Community law, the case falls within the exclusiveremit of any national legislation which may be applicable.
(2000/C 27 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1686/99
by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(20 September 1999)
Subject: Infringement of Community insurance legislation and distortion of competition in Greece
The incorporation of Community insurance legislation into Greek national law was until recently totally
inadequate, producing distortion of competition and damaging several companies. Even now that the legalvacuum has been filled, the supervisory authority, i.e. the Greek Government, is not implementing theprovisions and rules of the insurance directives, which has created distortion of competition and a risk thatthe insurance market may collapse under enormous deficits since four public companies and another fourprivate companies alone have a total deficit of more than Drs 65 billion.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/161 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Council

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Protection for the European granite industry

In recent years, firms quarrying granite in Europe, most of which are constituted as small or medium-sized undertakings, have had to cope with substantial changes. Competition both on the internal market and from third countries has resulted in average price falls of between 30 % and 40 % and has left a permanent mark on this sector.

The most recent developments have resulted in this sector being faced by new challenges; resolute action is required from the Commission and the Member States. China supplies large amounts of granite for road and bridge construction, as well as for buildings, and India does the same for tombstones. Because of the different level of wage costs, these imports are much cheaper than European products. What is more, these third countries protect themselves in part by means of export duties against the export of raw materials for processing.

What options are available to the Council in relation to anti-dumping and protective tariffs, to react vigorously to this concrete situation, and how quickly, in concert with the Commission, can targeted measures subsequently be put in place?

Reply

(26 April 1999)

1. It is recalled that, in accordance with the distribution of institutional responsibilities laid down by Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 in anti-dumping matters(1), the European Commission has the sole power to make provisional findings and to adopt provisional measures after consulting the Anti-dumping Committee. The adoption of definitive measures is a matter for the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission.

2. As to the possibility of raising existing duties, such possibility exists through Regulation 3286/94 (Trade Barrier Regulation(2)), whereby the Commission can make proposals subject to all conditions and procedures provided for by this regulation.

3. At this moment the Commission has not yet submitted proposals to the Council, either in relation to anti-dumping measures, nor in the framework of the trade barrier regulation.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/99

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 Cantabria in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: BSE cases in Ireland

Is the Commission aware that a recent report by the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture stated that Ireland has suffered 232 cases of BSE, second only to the United Kingdom, and that the Irish Agriculture Department's own figures disclose fourteen cases of the disease this month?

In the light of this serious situation, and given that Portugal is currently subject to a European Union beef export ban after 168 recorded cases of BSE, does the Commission not consider a close examination of the Irish situation to be extremely urgent if we are to ensure the health of European Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

The Commission believes that measures to control bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and to protect public health should be based on an assessment of not only the incidence, i.e. the number of BSE cases per 1 000 000 adult cattle, but also on the risk management measures applied in the affected area. The total number of cases alone in a certain Member State does not give a representative picture of the actual occurrence of the disease in that Member State as it does not take into account the size of the national herd. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member, and to the Parliament's Secretariat, tables containing this information.

In the case of Portugal, a combination of a high incidence of BSE (at present over 160 BSE cases per 1 000 000 adult cattle) and certain shortcomings in the enforcement of the measures to control the BSE risk factors, lead the Commission to propose restrictions on export and require reinforced implementation of protective measures inside Portugal. The corresponding incidence in Ireland is around 20 cases per 1 000 000 adult cattle and the missions of the Commission have not revealed problems in the risk management serious enough to envisage taking measures at Community level. Since 1996, the situation in Ireland appears stable as indicated by an incidence of roughly 20 BSE cases per 1 000 000 adult cattle, while the incidence in Portugal increased rapidly in 1998 from around 60 at the end of 1997 to over 150 BSE cases per 1 000 000 adult cattle at the end of 1998.

The Commission is keeping the development of the BSE situation in Ireland under close scrutiny, as it does in the other Member States, and will immediately propose further measures whenever it is deemed necessary in order to protect public or animal health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Beef and veal exports from Ireland

Can the Commission state how much beef and veal has been exported from Ireland to destinations outside the EU in the current (WTO) year to date and how much was paid in respect of this beef and veal in export subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

The Commission has no definitive data available on the actual exports, which took place since the beginning of the current General agreements on tariffs and trades (GATT) year (July 1998). The customs statistics on external trade contain information until November 1998. For the period July 1998 - November 1998 the Irish exports to third countries shown in those statistics were 108 000 tonnes of beef (expressed in carcass weight).

More accurate information is obtained from the communication by the Member States on the export licences requested. On that basis the quantities for which licences were requested in Ireland (period 1 July 1993-31 January 1999) were 144 133,5 tonnes (carcass weight). The corresponding amount of export refund is [fmxeuro]162 227 890,6.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0258/99

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1999)

Subject: Alleged ESF fraud in Catalonia

The High Court in Catalonia has agreed to hear a lawsuit concerning claims of ongoing corruption stemming from alleged irregularities in the processing of assistance from the European Social Fund in Catalonia.

To what extent is the Commission aware of this situation? Have its services, in particular UCLAF, taken any measures to deal with the alleged fraud?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1104/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(21 April 1999)

Subject: Tibetan Independence

How is the Commission monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet?

What is the Commission prepared to do to promote a peaceful settlement between China and Tibet in which Tibet be granted its right to autonomy?

Does the Commission not feel that it is acting hypocritically in continuing to trade with China when it is involved in the ethnic cleansing of the Tibetan people?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

The Commission has raised the question of Tibet at every session of the human rights dialogue between China and the Community. In the framework of this dialogue, Community troika ambassadors visited Tibet on several occasions, most recently in May 1998, to assess the human rights situation on the ground. The Community strongly supports a peaceful settlement of differences regarding Tibet through a direct dialogue between Beijing and representatives of the Dalai Lama, and regularly urges Chinese authorities to accept the Dalai Lama's offer to engage in such a dialogue.

The Commission believes that integrating further China in the world economy would meaningfully contribute towards building an open society based on the rule of law.