ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1164/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission wants to collect information on food intake, diets and nutritional status (section 107). It is also working on promoting nutritional research and efficient and accurate consumer information. These activities are already being carried out at national or subnational level.

1. What does the Commission think is the added value of comparable activities at EU level?

2. Is there not a risk with this approach of overlap and duplication? If so, is the Commission prepared to restrict itself to a coordinating (pivotal) role? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that there will not be any overlap or duplication?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1163/00 and E-1164/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

In drawing up a nutritional policy, the Commission will use the results of two current projects that are financed by the Health Promotion Programme. Each of these projects mobilises numerous national experts involved in national policies and representatives of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The first project is designed to draw up European recommendations on nutrition and the second will produce a background document for the French Presidency, which intends to promote nutritional health.

As far as health surveillance is concerned, most Member States have introduced a monitoring system, but it rarely includes monitoring of nutritional status. Although food consumption surveys are conducted, they are only the first stage in the evaluation of nutritional status. The rare data available on nutrition across the various Member States are not all of the same quality, and their comparability leaves something to be desired.

That is why the Commission has called on the Council and the Parliament on several occasions to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on health, and their quality and comparability.

The Commission would reassure the Honourable Member on the question of possible overlap between the measures of the Commission and those of the Member States. It has no intention of taking the place of the Member States. All the work under way in the area of nutritional health monitoring is being done together with the Member States, with the Commission initiating and coordinating such work.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/00

by Alejandro Agag Longo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Renewable energy

Renewable energy is a major objective of the EU, in response to the undertakings entered into in the Kyoto Protocol of late 1997 with regard to combating climate change. It was, accordingly, included in the Commission's 1998 white paper on renewable energy, and fully supported by the Council and Parliament as one of the main priorities for the Community's energy and environment policies.

The Commission is currently finalising a proposal for a directive on the promotion of renewable energy within the internal market in electricity, which is expected to be made available in the next few weeks.

Does the Commission not believe that the present draft guidelines on state aids for the environment could jeopardise, marginalise or even render useless the efforts currently being made by all the parties involved to establish a coherent Community market for the promotion of renewable energy within the internal market in electricity? Does the Commission not believe that account should be taken of the fact that electricity generation from renewable sources is today considerably more expensive than the conventional equivalent, and that there is therefore a need for active promotion and support to enable it to compete?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

On 10 May 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market(1). The strategic aim of the proposal is to support a significant medium-term increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and to ease its access to the internal electricity market.

(In its recital No 18) this proposal acknowledges that public assistance for electricity deriving from renewable energy sources will be necessary in order to achieve the Community's aims as regards its expansion, more particularly for just as long as electricity prices on the internal market do not reflect all of the costs and environmental advantages of the energy sources used.

The national support systems for electricity deriving from renewable energy sources are, of course, subject to the provisions of the EC Treaty and in particular Articles 87 and 88 thereof, concerning State aid. Revising the Community supervision of State support for the protection of the environment therefore does not conflict with, but is supplementary to, the adoption of the proposal for a Directive, given that it is necessary for the Member States and businesses to be familiar with the criteria that the Commission will apply in order to decide whether the assistance contemplated by the Member States is compatible, or not, with the common market. Those criteria must, of course, be consistent with the content and ultimate purpose of the proposal for a Directive of 10 May 2000. Applying them must therefore not remove any useful effect from that proposal.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/00

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Criteria for visual acuity in Directive 91/439 on driving licences

By way of implementation of Directive 91/439(1) on driving licences, Belgian legislation on lorry drivers lays down a criterion for visual acuity of at least 8/10 for the better eye and 5/10 for the weaker eye, if necessary using corrective lenses (e.g. spectacles or contact lenses). The result of this new standard on visual acuity is that people with a lazy eye can no longer become lorry drivers. Furthermore, a number of lorry drivers who have been regarded as medically capable for years may suddenly fail to obtain a new driving aptitude certificate.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Is it not possible to revise the Directive to take account of the specific case of lorry drivers with a lazy eye? Is it not at least possible to make an exception for lorry drivers who obtained their licences at a time when less stringent standards applied?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1) lays down minimum health criteria for driving power-driven vehicles, including eyesight criteria. Current scientific evidence suggests that the criteria laid down for health in general, and for eyesight in particular, are not stringent enough in view of the requirements of road safety, in their present form.

However, the Commission is also aware that Annex III does not allow less stringent health criteria to be maintained on a national level for those drivers who obtained their licence before the coming into force of the Directive. The Commission proposal for the Directive contained a clause allowing this, but it was not adopted by the Council.

The committee on the driving licence discussed the practical and social implications, notably for professional bus and lorry drivers, on several occasions in 1998 and 1999. The Commission is currently considering amending Directive 91/439/EEC and, within the limits of road safety requirements, any proposal could once again allow for less stringent health criteria to be maintained on a national level for professional drivers who obtained their licences before it comes into force.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0487/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Comitology

How many meetings fully or partly-funded by the Commission were held in 1998 and 1999 respectively in the following categories:

- meetings attended by less than six experts

- separate arrangements

- joint committees with non-Member States

- COST committees?

Please also provide a full list of those participants in meetings who received travel expenses.

Please give the figures for the 385 and 366 committees in 1998 and 1999, and for the 376 and 381 temporary expert working parties in 1998 and 1999.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Honourable Member has raised several questions regarding the number of meetings held in the years 1998 and 1999, which were fully or partly funded by the Commission, in several categories.

With regard to committees and the related working groups, the Commission sent already to the Honourable Member a computer print-out of all committee meetings in 1997 in response to his Written Question P-2282/99(1). The Commission will add to this the figures for the year 1998, the most recent available at the moment.

As for joint committees with non-Member States and COST committees in the research field, the Commission is currently checking the relevant figures in the policy areas concerned and will send these direct to the Honourable Member as soon as they are available.

Identifying the number of meetings attended by less than six experts and all separate arrangements would require a lengthy and costly case-by-case research that the Commission is unable to undertake at the present time because of other priorities.

The same applies to the request of the Honourable Member to provide a full list of the participants in meetings whose travel expenses were reimbursed. In addition, the names of participants who are not appointed personally as members have to be regarded as personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and 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(2). Thus, by virtue of Article 7 lit. (a) of the Directive, it is required that the data subject unambiguously gives his or her consent to the disclosure of the names. This would require multiple single procedures in order to receive the consent of the several thousands of people participating in these meetings.

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 138.

(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1896/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Abolition of tax privileges

Over the years Members of the European Parliament, including the author of this question, have repeatedly pressed, in the form of various parliamentary initiatives, for the abolition of the outmoded tax privileges

that diplomatic representatives continue to enjoy even today within the common internal market. Thus the MEPs Atsrid Lulling (1991), Outi Ojala (1998), Philippe De Coene (1999) and Michl Ebner (1999/2000) have tabled parliamentary questions in this context, the MEPs Cushnahan, Banotti and Gillis (1996) a motion for a resolution.

Given the unambiguous demands voiced by the European Parliament, how can the Commission justify its lack of action in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1996/99(1).

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Financial aid to Nantygwyddon landfill site

In the mid 1980's Rhondda Borough Council, Wales, received a substantial amount of funding from the European Structural Funds to help with the construction of the Nantygwyddon landfill site. This was the first time that a grant had been given to a landfill site in the UK.

Will the Commission provide details of:

1. the amount of European funding which was allocated to the construction of the Nantygwyddon landfill site?

2. any conditions attached to the grant?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

According to information received from the British authorities, the Nantygwyddon landfill site was allocated some £ 748 000 structural fund support.

The conditions attached to this grant concerned compliance with the details contained in the original application for funding; publicity actions; compliance with public procurement rules; retention of accounting and similar records; and consistency of ownership of the aided asset.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0958/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: EU contribution to tourism development in Melilla

The city of Melilla, located in North Africa and part of the European Union, is seeking means of resolving the major problems affecting it, namely isolation and the need to diversify its economy through the sustained development of tourism. Potentially it offers a double attractiveness, as a European city for the Maghreb and as a gateway to Africa for Europe.

Melilla therefore needs to implement a large-scale tourism plan, including the regeneration of its beaches and the improvement of sea and air communications links. These two key factors will make it possible to dynamise other elements that are needed for a far-reaching tourism development programme.

Can the Commission state to what extent it believes that the EU can participate in an integrated tourism development plan for Melilla, to enable this city, situated in North Africa but part of the Union, to become, in the medium to long term, a genuine tourist attraction for all the Union's Member States?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The autonomous city of Melilla is eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 programming period.

At present Spain's operational programme proposals are in preparation prior to transmission to the Commission, which will of course give serious consideration to support for the development of tourism in Melilla if included.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/00

by Imelda Read (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Experimental use and testing for generic medicines prior to patent-expiry

On 16 April 1996 the European Parliament passed a resolution on the Industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector (A4-0104/96(1)) asking the European Commission and Member States to introduce legislation that would enable generic medicines to be tested and registered in preparation for the expiry of the original product's market monopoly (so-called bolar provisions).

Since that date the European Commission has commissioned a study on Policy relating to generic medicines in the OECD (20/12/1998) that showed that without such provisions the EU active ingredient industry alone will lose 13 000 jobs.

At the TABD in November 1997 the Commission acknowledged that the EU generic industry was at a competitive disadvantage to the manufacturers outside the EU who benefit from such provisions. In its Communication on the Single Market in Pharmaceuticals (COM(98) 588) the Commission indicated that the licensing process should operate speedily to ensure that consumers have access to low-priced generic medicines as soon as possible after the patent protection of the originator product expires.

The call for such provisions was also made at the TACD meeting in February in Washington.

Most recently a WTO Panel Ruling in EU v. Canada (WT/DS114/R) of 17 March 2000 clarified that these Bolar provisions are compatible with TRIPS and are therefore in line with the EU's international obligations with respect to intellectual property protection.

In view of these developments could the Commission explain what is being done to introduce such provisions into EU law?

(1) OJ C 141, 13.5.1996, p. 63.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2000)

The Commission has recently agreed on a proposal for establishing a Community patent(1). The discussions in the Council and the Parliament on this proposal will certainly address the issue of the so-called Bolar type exception to patent rights. The Commission will take note of the positions taken on this issue in respect of the Community patent and will, if necessary, then consider whether any further initiatives should be taken in relation to the national patent systems in the Community.

(1) COM(2000) 412 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2544/00

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Budget line B3-1003 preparatory measures for the promotion of linguistic diversity in the information society

When does the Commission expect to issue a call for proposals for 2000 under the budget line B3-1003 preparatory measures for the promotion of linguistic diversity in the information society in order to spend the 2 million commitments which are on that budget line for 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0466/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna(1).

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 166.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: European school milk scheme

The Commission is proposing to radically change the school milk scheme. At the moment, the disposal of milk in schools is fully subsidised by the European Union. In future this financing would be halved. The other half of the financing would then have to come from the Member States, but they would be allowed to pass on the costs to milk producers and/or the dairy industry. These sweeping proposals are encountering a great deal of opposition, due in part to the negative consequences for milk consumption.

1. What are the grounds for the Commission's proposals to halve aid for the school milk scheme?

2. Has the Commission carried out a detailed study of the impact of its proposal on milk consumption in schools?

(a) If not, why is that the case, and does the Commission intend to carry out a study in view of the probable negative impact on milk consumption?

(b) If so, what are the anticipated effects, and what conclusions does the Commission draw from the results of this research?

3. Does the Commission not consider it more advisable to continue to fully subsidise the school milk scheme in view of the health benefits of milk?

(a) If not, why is the Commission sticking to its proposal to halve aid in spite of the health benefits of milk?

(b) If so, will the school milk scheme be financed on a long-term basis by the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2000)

1. Under the Commission's proposal of 10 December 1999(1) for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, the reduction in Community aid would be more than offset by a compulsory national contribution. This would mean that the total aid granted would rise from 95 % to 100 % of the milk target price. For the arguments in support of this proposal, the Honourable Member is referred to the explanatory memorandum accompanying it.

2. The basis for the proposal includes an assessment study made by external consultants that can be accessed on the Commission's Internet site. Its conclusions were that the aid and its amount had only a limited impact on availability of milk products in schools and the level of consumption in general.

3. The Commission freely acknowledges that distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social objectives. That is in fact why it considers that the aid should not fall exclusively to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund but be split between it and the Member States. The Commission's proposal confirms the Community's financial commitment to the school milk scheme.

(1) OJ C 89, 28.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2114/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Impact of State aid to Spanish electricity companies: real competition on the generation market

In its report on the Unión Fenosa-Hidrocantábrico merger the Spanish Competition Court maintains that, because it allows CTCs (costs of transition to competition) to be securitised by being transferred to third parties, the CTC system adopted by Spain removes the disincentive that presently serves to ensure that the wholesale market price does not rise above a given level.

Does the Commission believe that securitisation of CTCs, which amounts to de facto recognition of a fixed volume of CTCs regardless of the effects of market variables over time, rules out the possibility of controlling wholesale market prices?

Given that, as the Spanish competition authority acknowledges, there is no real competition on the Spanish electricity generation market, does the Commission not consider that securitisation of CTCs is simply tantamount to abandonment of the only means of controlling the market power that companies wield over the wholesale electricity market price?

Does it not believe that securitisation of CTCs as proposed under the Spanish system will, to all practical intents and purposes, prevent genuine competition from being introduced on to the market?

What does the Commission think about the fact that, according to the findings of the Spanish Competition Court, the wholesale market price increased by 20 % in the first four months of the year?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The three first questions that the Honourable Member asks concern securitisation or the possibility of transferring to third parties the right to receive aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTC).

This possibility is one of the set of measures provided for in the Spanish law on the electricity sector. These measures are currently being examined by the Commission in the light of the EC Treaty provisions on State aid. It would be premature to comment on any of these measures before the Commission adopts a decision on this matter.

As to the Honourable Member's fourth question, the Commission cannot state, on the basis of the information at its disposal, that the prices on the Spanish electricity market are determined exclusively by the existence of CTCs or, even less, by their possible securitisation, which is not yet a reality.