ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Sport and drugs

How does the Commission intend to pursue a more active Community policy to combat the use of drugs in major European sports events in order to promote healthy sporting activity?

Will it also say what specific initiatives have been taken to harmonize rules and procedures at European level concerning the ban on drugs, or drugs-taking in general, and to alert public opinion to the dangers of these abuses in sport?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

The EC Treaty confers no powers on the Community to develop a common policy to combat the use of drugs.

The Commission, however, is aware of the problem and seeks to mobilise the instruments available to it in the context of various Community policies and of justice and internal affairs cooperation. For example, the use of drugs in sport will be one of the priority areas of the new 5th framework programme for Research and Technological Development (1998-2002) (1), especially aspects relating to demand reduction, the use of drugs in sport and occupational exposure limits. In the context of combating fraud, the problem will be identified as a research topic under the "Measures and Tests" generic activity of the thematic programme on Competitiveness and Sustainable Growth.

The Commission will participate in the international conference on the use of drugs, organised by the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne in February 1999.

The Commission recalls the existence of the 1989 European Anti-Doping Convention (Council of Europe), currently being ratified by the Member States. Application of the Convention will be a positive step in the fight against drug abuse.

(1) OJ C 137, 7.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council

(24 November 1998)

Subject: European Union publicity material

Will the Council of Ministers please indicate the cost of the publicity material currently being distributed to British schools concerning the European Union and who bears this cost?

Would the Council of Ministers agree that any such material distributed in Member States which concerns the benefits of EU membership and participation in the euro should present both sides of the argument, both for and against?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

The Council is unable to comment on the question of distribution of European Union publicity material, whether in British schools or anywhere else, since it has absolutely no connection with such activities.

The Honourable Member is perhaps thinking of the material produced by the European Commission, in which case she should address her questions directly to the Commission.

In this context it should be pointed out that on 29 June 1998 the Council declared its support for "increased cooperation between EU institutions in information policy." At present, such coooperation only takes place to any great extent between the European Parliament and the Commission.

Subsequently, on 7 December 1998, the Council adopted the following conclusions:

"The Council notes the Member States' responsibility for information about the European Union.

The Council recognises the Commission's role in promoting the interinstitutional cooperation in the field of information about the European Union.

The Council notes the Commission's intention to establish mechanisms to allow those in charge of information in the Member States and the EU institutions to exchange their experiences, communicate with each other and hold consultations concerning information about the European Union, and to report regularly on progress achieved.

The Council notes the Commission's intention to make suggestions for interinstitutional cooperation in this field, in particular with the European Parliament and the Council."
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3594/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: The Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin

Can the Commission indicate what it has done in response to the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in September 1998 in order to ensure that Mrs Taslima Nasrin's safety is guaranteed when she visits her terminally ill mother in Bangladesh?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

The Commission, through its delegation in Dhaka, has been following very closely developments in the case of writer Taslima Nasrin.

It may be noted that there have been recent developments. On 22 November 1998 Mrs Nasrim appeared before the High Court which granted her bail in the second case filed against her by a Bangladeshi citizen. It should be recalled that in the first case, filed by the government in 1994, Mrs Nasrin had already obtained bail. Following the granting of bail and according to her defence counsel, she is now free to travel inside Bangladesh and abroad. Obviously her freedom of movement is limited by the risk of action that might be taken against her by pro-Islamic extremist groups.

The Commission delegation in Dhaka remains in close contact with the diplomatic missions of the Member States and is ready to participate in any initiative considered helpful in the Taslima Nasrin case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4011/98

by Vincenzo Viola (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Proceedings under Article 93(2) opened in connection with the sale of Sicilcassa to the Banco di Sicilia SpA

Further to the Article 93(2) proceedings opened by the Commission on 7 May 1998 in connection with the sale of Sicilcassa to the Banco di Sicilia SpA, has the Italian Government supplied the information requested and when does the Commission intend to give its final opinion on whether the sale complies with the rules on free competition?

In particular, would the Commission establish whether the intervention of the Interbank Deposit Guarantee Fund ('Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi') does not itself constitute an improper aid measure, since the fact that the recovery of Sicilcassa's bad debts (a prime example being the Banca Agricola Etnea) is proving much more successful than had been anticipated shows that the bank's indebtedness was deliberately exaggerated so as to force it into liquidation, thus prompting the intervention of the guarantee fund and the sale of the bank to the Banco di Sicilia SpA, which, one cannot help feeling, can never have made a better deal, with scant regard for competition and market rules?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Honourable Member has enquired as to the exhaustive nature of the documentation submitted to the Commission by the Italian Government following the initiation of proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. He also asks for the Commission's views on possible elements of state aid in the role played by the "Fondo di Garanzia di Tutela dei Depositi" (Interbank Deposit Guarantee Fund) in the winding-up of Sicilcassa.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that the Italian Government has submitted most of the documents requested by the Commission, except for those which can be drawn up only after due diligence has been observed in respect of the assets and liabilities of Sicilcassa.

Secondly, when it initiated the proceedings in question(1), the Commission stated the reasons why the role of the "Fondo di Garanzia di Tutela dei Depositi" did not involve elements of state aid. These reasons take into account, among other things, the legal nature of the Fund, its composition and its internal decision-making rules and procedures. The Commission's analysis, fully set out in its decision, concludes that the Fund is an association governed by private law and takes decisions independently of the public authorities.

(1) OJ C 297, 25.9.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3541/98

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: ERDF assistance for the projected forestry biomass incinerator power-station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Palencia, Spain)

In the answer given on 5 October 1998 to Written Question E-2145/98(1)Mr Papoutsis maintained that the projected forestry biomass incinerator power-station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Spain) was not in receipt of assistance under the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund (point 2 of the answer).

On 13 April 1998, however, when replying to a question from Senator Heliodoro Gallego, the Spanish State Secretary for Relations with the Cortes had said that the above project was being funded by ERDF assistance totalling PTA 279 902 000 and a further subsidy of PTA 119 958 000 from the Spanish State budget.

1. In view of the discrepancy between the two answers, could the Commission supply the information in its possession concerning the ERDF assistance granted for the power-station, as indicated by the State Secretary?

2. Does the Commission not believe that it should clear up the matter as completely as possible, to enable European citizens to enjoy an unimpaired right of access to information?

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

(22 January 1999)

The Honourable Member is reminded that the programming system under the Structural Funds is based on the principle of subsidiarity; the Commission decides on the general scope (Community support frameworks), based on which specific programmes are approved. With the exception of major projects, which are separately identified in programmes, the authorities responsible for implementing them choose the projects to be funded. The Commission gets to know more about the individual projects only when implementation starts, when it receives annual progress reports and attends meetings of the Monitoring Committees.

In the case of the biomass incinerator at Salinas de Pusuerga, the Commission did not have any official information when it received the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2145/98(2). It therefore consulted the Spanish authorities, who told it that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) had not contributed to this project.

The Commission has since received more detailed information from the authorities in question. The Ministry of Industry has committed itself to granting ESP 400 million (ECU 2,4 million) to the project in question, which would qualify for an ERDF contribution of ESP 280 million (ECU 1,8 million). No payment has as yet been made, however.

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 23.

(2) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: "Chemicals in the European Environment" - EEA publication

The European Environment Agency recently published its report entitled "Chemicals in the European Environment: Low doses, high stakes".

Can the Commission please comment on this report and indicate what action it proposes to take as a result of it?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 1999)

The Commission welcomes the European environment agency's report "chemicals in the European environment: low doses, high stakes" as a contribution to the debate about chemicals which is an issue of public concern.

In response to this concern the Commission has already commenced a stock-taking of the existing Community legislation on industrial chemicals. In November 1998 the Commission reported on the evaluation of the operation of the four main Community legislative instruments (Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1), Council Directive 88/379/EEC on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations(2), Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(3) and Council Directive 76/769/EEC on restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations(4)) governing industrial chemicals, examining the effectiveness and efficiency of the four instruments in terms of their specific objectives, which cover protection of human health and the environment in the context of the internal market, an assessment of the operational weaknesses and recommendations for improvement(5).

The Commission intends to proceed with a brainstorming with Member States, industry, consumers, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and scientists; and with the preparation of a Commission communication, which is on the Commission work programme for 1999. This will set out the strategy for the future, including possible legislative options. It should be noted that the Commission will also start a SLIM (simplification of the legislation for the internal market) exercise at the beginning of 1999 concerning Directive 67/548/EEC.

Additionally, in October 1998 the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) launched an initiative to fill the data gaps (hazard identification and assessment) on "existing" chemicals. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) is committed to the ICCA initiative, which aims to provide initial risk assessments for 1 000 substances by the year 2004. In the Community, CEFIC will be working in close co-operation with the Commission and Member States.

(1) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967.

(2) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(3) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.

(4) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(5) SEC(98) 1986 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Information on the Chiquita multinational

It has recently been reported in various sections of the media that sole responsibility for the pressure brought to bear on the US Administration to challenge the EU's COM for bananas before the World Trade Organisation can be attributed to the Chiquita multinational (in opposition to the views of other multinationals: Del Monte and Dole).

According to these reports, a delegation comprising members of the US Congress, representatives of various organisations, etc., recommended after visiting a large number of Caribbean states in Central America that the US should negotiate with those states on the banana regime without the threat of unilateral sanctions and that the US should not compel other parties to comply with the resolution adopted by the WTO panel against the COM for bananas in the European Union.

The delegation also noted that the pressure exerted by the Chiquita multinational was clearly damaging to the island states of the Caribbean which benefited from the convention between ACP countries and the EU and that it would boost the interests of that multinational in Latin American countries, where very poor working conditions were a defining feature.

Is the Commission aware of this information?

Does the Commission believe that the resolution adopted by the WTO panel on the COM for bananas responds more to the interests of the Chiquita multinational than to those of banana-growing countries in America?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of media coverage as outlined by the Honourable Member.

The Commission firmly believes that any international trade dispute should be settled according to the appropriate procedures under the terms of internationally agreed multilateral trade agreements and that individual countries should not adopt unilateral actions outwith these procedures.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the effects of World trade organisation (WTO) rulings on individual companies since WTO procedures concern countries and not individual companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3209/98

by Robert Sturdy (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Calf Processing Aid scheme (CPAS)

Is the Commission aware that the UK Government is proposing to end the Calf Processing Aid Scheme on 30 November 1998?

With no export market for male calves from the dairy herd, is the Commission aware of the very severe consequences that the removal of this scheme could have on the UK and EU beef industry in the medium term?

What measures is the Commission taking to ensure the early lifting of the export ban on calves?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the Calf Processing Scheme will remain available in the UK?

One of the reasons for ending the CPAS in the UK appears to be the cost of the scheme due to the perceived high level of aid. Will the Commission look at the possibility of allowing the payment of a lower level of aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

1. The Commission is aware that the matter is being considered by the British government but, until now, the final decision has not formally been communicated to the Commission.

2. and 4. In fact, as from 1 December 1998, the application of the processing premium becomes optional to Member States. Therefore the decision has to be taken by the national authorities concerned.

3. At present, the export certified herds scheme allows the dispatch from certain establishments in Northern Ireland of deboned beef from cattle coming from herds in the province which are subject to strict conditions in respect of freedom from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Furthermore, the Commission has submitted a draft document to the standing veterinary committee to introduce a date-based export scheme which would allow dispatch of deboned beef from cattle born in the United Kingdom after 1 August 1996, again under strict controls to ensure freedom from BSE. There are at present no proposals to relax the embargo in respect of live cattle.

5. According to Regulation (EEC) 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), the Commission sets the processing premium at a level or, where appropriate, levels enabling a sufficient number of calves to be withdrawn from production in line with the market requirements. The Commission, as it has already done in the past, will not hesitate to amend the amount of the payment according to the above commitment.

(1) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/98

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: EU aid for greyhound breeders

A number of newspaper articles have highlighted the awful treatment of greyhounds, and there is information to suggest that dogs no longer regarded as fit for racing are subjected to considerable cruelty. It has come to my notice that greyhound breeders can receive EU aid under agricultural support schemes.

Is the Commission aware of the information which suggests that greyhounds are subjected to cruel treatment and, if so, what steps will it take regarding the possibilities for granting EU aid to greyhound breeders in future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission is aware of a number of press articles alleging ill-treatment of racing greyhounds.

No Community support is now available for the greyhound rearing enterprise in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3893/98

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Tomato quotas

How can the Commission be planning to redistribute the 1999 tomato quotas on the basis of data supplied by each Member State, when it knows that there are legitimate grounds for doubting the veracity of some of these figures?

What procedure will the Commission adopt if, once the quotas have been redistributed, it should indeed be proven that the figures used were false?

How will producers in the Member States be compensated for the losses suffered as a result of the decision establishing their quotas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

As regards the veracity of the data used to calculate the allocation of the quotas between the Member States for the 1999/2000 marketing year, which the Honourable Member has cast doubts on, the Commission is aware only that judicial investigations are under way in one Member State.

The Commission will calculate the relevant quotas using the official information from the Member States, which it must use as long as such information is not invalidated by accurate and undeniable findings (especially legal) to the contrary.

If the Honourable Member has this information, he is invited to provide it to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3356/98

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Spraying of fruit with antibiotics

The Swedish media, among other sources, reports that fruit farms are being sprayed with antibiotics to combat pests and crop disease. At the same time, it is known that excessive use of antibiotics can have very dangerous effects, such as producing resistant bacteria.

Does the Commission consider that spraying with antibiotics is to be recommended and how is public health safeguarded with this type of spraying?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3185/98 and P-3356/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Antibiotics registered for uses in plant protection in certain Member States include kasugamycin (registered in Greece, Spain and Netherlands), streptomycin (Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, Austria), validamycin (Netherlands) and oxytetracyclin (Greece). These substances will be evaluated at Community level under Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1) in the framework of the review programme for existing active substances.

The problem of the development of anti-microbial resistance in pathogenic micro-organisms is becoming particularly serious. A number of converging reports have been published by the scientific community and by international or national organisations. This is the reason why the Commission has asked the scientific steering committee to examine this question and its relationship with the use of anti-microbials in human and veterinary medicine, animal husbandry and plant protection. If necessary, the Commission will propose measures in the light of this scientific opinion, which should be available around April 1999.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.