ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration - troops

In 1975 Portugal withdrew its military forces from the territory of Macao, the size of which did not justify a military presence. The Sino-Portuguese joint declaration grants the Central Government of the People's Republic of China exclusive competence in the area of defence and foreign policy, it being understood by the two parties that no Chinese troops would be stationed there. This was confirmed in April 1997 in the European Parliament by Mr Lu Ping in reply to my question.

Nevertheless, the Deputy Prime Minister Qian Qichen has now announced to the Preparatory Commission meeting in Beijing that China will send troops to Macao as a symbol of sovereignty.

How does the Council assess this fact from the point of view of the credibility of China's commitments to the principle of "one country, two systems?"

Reply

(8 February 1999)

At its meeting in Amsterdam on 16-17 June 1997, the European Council expressed its wish that the transition process in the territory would continue to be in accordance with the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration of 1987, thus contributing to a smooth transfer of responsibilities on 20 December 1999.

The European Union pays particular attention to the principle "one country, two systems" in this context.

It is the impression of the Council that the transition period so far has evolved in a positive way. The Council expects that full respect for a high degree of autonomy of the future Special Administrative Region will continue to guarantee the preservation of the specific social, juridical, economic and cultural identity of Macau.

The Council furthermore, while noting that the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration grants the Government of China exclusive competence in defence and foreign policy matters, would like to presume that no unilateral actions taken by the Chinese authorities infringe upon the Joint Declaration and is confident that any deployment of troops in Macau after the transfer of administration will be in accordance with the Joint Declaration, and with the sole purpose of upholding the defence of the territory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2731/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU aid for full-fat school milk

In its answer to my question E-2246/96(1) of 13 September 1996 the Commission refused to give the same aid to all types of milk.

The Danish Government has submitted a report on a preventive health scheme to the Folketing which the Ministry of Health forwarded to primary schools on 13 January 1998. Fats should account for no more than 30 % of the energy value of all food served in school canteens in order to instil healthy eating habits in pupils. The EU's subsidised milk scheme counteracts Danish efforts to give pupils healthy low-fat eating habits because low-fat milk products are not given positive special treatment.

Is the Commission still convinced that the choice of milk products receiving EU aid is large and varied enough to provide a healthy, varied and balanced diet for children, or does it intend to abolish all aid for products containing fat?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission wishes to state that the points made in the Honourable Member¢s question do not affect the validity of its reply to Written Question E-2246/96. As the 30 % rule mentioned in this question relates to all the food products consumed in school canteens, the Commission believes that the range of milk products subsidised under the Community school-milk scheme complies fully with this rule.

Moreover, the Commission would point out that the school-milk scheme is a measure whose objectives and operation must be consistent with the common organisation of the market in milk. With regard to objectives falling outside this framework, the school-milk scheme has to remain neutral. The Commission will endeavour to make sure that this condition is met.

(1) OJ C 11, 13.1.1997, p. 71.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Impact of international financial turmoil on the European steel market - enlargement

The international steel trade faces new challenges; three major regions of the world - Russia, South-East Asia and Latin America - are facing economic problems. The consequences of this are twofold: the shift in traditional trade flows has led to massive increases in imports into Europe, with a 520 % rise in imports from Asia and a 109 % rise in imports from the USA in 1998, and the concentration of markets has resulted in a fall in European exports, exacerbated by a tendency towards regional protectionism. European steel producers have so far coped successfully with this development. The number of operators in central and eastern European countries raises important issues for the Union's enlargement strategy.

What importance does the Commission attach to the steel sector in the current and planned accession negotiations, particularly in view of the current situation?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

As regards the steel sector, the applicant countries will be expected, upon accession, to implement the relevant acquis. In the run up to membership they prepare themselves in the framework of the pre-accession strategy. The Commission attaches great importance to the steel sector in this preparatory phase. In its communication of 7 April 1998(1), the Commission outlined a methodology for supporting steel industry restructuring in the Central and Eastern European countries to ensure a successful integration into the internal market.

(1) COM(98) 220 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3226/98

by Elena Marinucci (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: The URBAN Community Initiative

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it is true that, in response to the Cardiff European Council and in order to assist the peace process in Ireland, it intends to find the necessary funding by taking Community Initiative funding which has not been used and, if so,

2. on what current legislation this decision is based?

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

(19 November 1998)

The Commission has proposed to the Member States that the peace and reconciliation initiative be funded in 1999 by adjusting the indicative financial allocations for those Community initiatives which are performing below expectations. This would respond to the European Council's request at the Cardiff summit in June 1998 that the Commission finds ways of supporting the fresh opportunities which the Northern Ireland peace agreement brings and would answer Parliament's request to consider as a matter of urgency how the peace agreement can be supported in practical terms. It would also comply with the orientations of the 1999 draft budget, that an additional ECU 100 million for the peace initiative should be provided by reprogramming the other Community initiatives and meet Parliament's request to make reallocations within the Community initiatives to ensure their appropriate financial implementation.

The modifications to the indicative allocations will be made by amending the Commission decisions of 13 July 1994 and 8 May 1996 which established, respectively, the original indicative allocation to the Community initiatives and the distribution of the Community initiative financial reserve.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3830/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Impact of international financial turmoil on the European steel market - fairer world trade

The international steel trade faces new challenges; three major regions of the world - Russia, South-East Asia and Latin America - are facing economic problems. The consequences of this are twofold: the shift in traditional trade flows has led to massive increases in imports into Europe, with a 520 % rise in imports from Asia and a 109 % rise in imports from the USA in 1998, and the concentration of markets has resulted in a fall in European exports, exacerbated by a tendency towards regional protectionism. European steel producers have so far coped successfully with this development. What is now needed above all is regulatory measures for the future.

What measures does the Commission consider necessary to ensure fair conditions of competition worldwide? More specifically, will the Commission provide a list of all anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings current or pending?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission recognises that the Community steel sector has experienced an exceptional surge in imports as well as a fall in exports as a result of the crises that began in South East Asia last year. Under these conditions, it is necessary for all parties to act responsibly, for steel exporting countries to ensure fair trading practices and for steel importing countries to refrain from disproportionate or hasty responses to pressures on their markets.

In accordance with the World trade organisation (WTO) ministerial declaration in May 1998 the Commission is fully committed to maintaining current levels of market access while pursuing further liberalisation. The Commission considers that the expansion of trade within a rule-based system will help economies recover from current economic difficulties. In this context, trade defence instruments are necessary to remedy specific situations, as provided in WTO rules.

The Commission received an anti-dumping complaint and an anti-subsidy complaint from Eurofer about hot rolled coils of steel concern imports from six and three countries respectively. As required by the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (EC) 384/96 of 22 December 1995(1), the Commission examined the complaints to ensure they met the requirements concerning the provision of prima facie evidence in accordance with the Basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation, both of which are fully in conformity with the WTO agreements in these areas. Following consultation of the Member States, the Commission decided on 6 January that the prima facie case of the European industry was strong enough to warrant the initiation of full investigation.

The following is the list of current anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS) investigations concerning steel products:

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/98

by James Nicholson (I-EDN) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Chernobyl disaster - imports of fish

What safeguards does the Commission have in place to deal with fish imported from areas which may have been contaminated by fall-out from the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power station?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

The release for free circulation in the Community of agricultural products imported from third countries is subject to the conditions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 737/90 of 22 March 1999 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station(1), which stipulates that these products must not exceed accumulated maximum tolerances for caesium-134 and caesium-137 of 370 Bq/kg for milk, milk products and foodstuffs intended for infants and 600 Bq/kg for other products.

However, to take account of the fact that it is impossible for certain products to have been significantly contaminated by fallout from the Chernobyl accident and of changes in the radiological situation in the countries affected by the fallout, the Commission has decided, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 737/90, to adopt a regularly updated list of products which are excluded from the scope of the abovementioned Regulation. The first list of excluded products in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) 146/91 of 22 January 1991(2) contained a large number of products, including in particular fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates of marine origin only. Fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates from fresh water were excluded in 1993 when a new list was adopted under Commission Regulation (EEC) 1518/93 of 21 June 1993(3). Since 1991, the Commission, assisted by an ad hoc committee made up of representatives of the Member States, has regularly reexamined the list. The last revision of the list of products was in 1997 and led to the adoption by the Commission of Regulation (EC) 727/97 of 24 April 1997(4). Although fish and other aquatic products are no longer covered by the scope of Regulation (EC) 737/90, the Member States must comply with the provisions of the Directive laying down the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public against the dangers of ionising radiation(5), including exposure resulting from the consumption of foodstuffs.

(1) OJ L 82, 23.3.1990.

(2) OJ L 17, 23.1.1991.

(3) OJ L 150, 22.6.1993.

(4) OJ L 108, 25.4.1997.

(5) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980, OJ L 265, 5.10.1984, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/98

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Network for the surveillance and monitoring of communicable diseases

In view of the European Parliament and Council decision of 24 September 1998 establishing a network for the epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of communicable diseases;

In view of the pilot scheme currently being funded by the Commission for an epidemiological surveillance network for the epidemiological surveillance of alveolar hydatid disease, a parasitic disease transmitted through food but also closely linked to environmental factors and water;

In view of the spread of this disease in France and Germany, its appearance in the Netherlands and the threat it represents in the United Kingdom;

Does the Commission envisage amending the annex to the decision of September 1998 in the near future, as permitted by Article 8 thereof, to include alveolar hydatid disease, thus allowing surveillance of the disease which can only be properly carried out at European level?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Decision 2119/98/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 sets up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community(1).

The Commission does not intend at the moment to submit any draft regarding the amendment of the Annex to the Decision to include "hepatic alveolar echinococcosis".

However, priorities may vary with time in response to changes in the epidemiological situation within and outside the Community so it is important to monitor potential health problems. The Commission is supporting "EurEchinoReg" a pilot project on alveolar echinococcosis. When the results of the project are known the Commission will decide on any necessary action to be taken.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4019/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Financing of human rights actions

Having regard to the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 3 December 1998 concerning the management and financing of human rights and democratisation programmes,

given that the Council of Europe - whose role, experience and knowledge in the field of human rights are remarkable - piloted, at the Commission's request, the measures submitted by the NGOs, including measures of annual duration; that the Commission's decisions have affected the arrangements as a whole, without prior consultation of the Council of Europe,

would the Commission provide clarification concerning:

1. the cooperation between Commission and Council that previously existed in this area and the assessment made of its results;

2. the reasons for the unilateral changing of procedures, without taking account of the effectiveness of cooperation with the Council of Europe;

3. the measures the Commission will take, in strict conformity with the resolution of Parliament, to restore cooperation with the Council of Europe and harmonious institutional relations that address the reciprocal, but convergent, interests of the EU and the Council of Europe in the promotion and defence of human rights and democracy?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 1999)

The Commission has a long tradition of working with the Council of Europe in the field of human rights and democratisation. Since 1993, the Commission and the Council of Europe have run joint programmes in a number of Central and Eastern European countries focusing on reforming the legal and local government systems and on setting up machinery to safeguard human rights. They have involved Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Programmes on specific issues such as national minorities and combating organised crime and corruption are open to all of Central and Eastern Europe. The total budget of the ongoing programmes is EUR 13,19 million.

An outside evaluation of the joint programmes for bolstering federal structures, introducing machinery to safeguard human rights and reforming the legal system in the Russian Federation and Ukraine is currently under way.

The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 15 May in case C106/96 led to the freezing of all the budget headings dealing with non-governmental organisations' and international organisations' human rights activities (this included the Council of Europe) until the interinstitutional agreement at the end of July 1998 gave exceptional permission for them to be used. The interruption did not, however, have negative effects on the cooperation under way, nor did it endanger the planning of future activities. In 1998, the Commission approved three new projects drawn up in partnership with the Council of Europe.

The European Union-Council of Europe quadripartite meeting held on 7 October 1998 praised the state of cooperation between the two organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3368/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Sewage treatment plant: San Juan De Los Terreros (Pulpi)

Following on from my Written Question E-0815/98(1) and the response given by Mrs Bjerregaard on 30 April 1998, it is apparent that the quality of life experienced by my constituent Mr Howard, whilst occupying his Spanish property is far from satisfactory.

Very few people living in Europe would tolerate obnoxious and foul smells permeating their homes at all times, and the peat beds established by the authorities in San Juan de Los Terreros, Pulpi, do little or nothing to alleviate this ongoing problem. My constituent pays taxes to the Spanish authorities, and as such, believes that the Spanish authorities could do more to find a suitable solution to the problem.

Could the Commission bring pressure to bear upon the authorities, to recognise that improvements need to be undertaken as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 1999)

As indicated in the answer to the previous Written Question E-815/98 of the Honourable Member concerning the urban waste-water treatment plant in the urban area of San Juan de los Terreros in Pulpi (Almeria, Spain), it was up to the Member State, in accordance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2), to decide whether the environmental impact of the project of this treatment plant would be significant enough to require such an assessment. The Spanish authorities considered an assessment necessary and it was carried out in 1992. In this respect, Community legislation was complied with.

With regard to any improvements to be made to alleviate the discomfort which this plant seems to cause to a constituent of the Honourable Member, these fall within the competence of the regional or local authorities, whether or not the said assessment made provision for any follow-up measures relating to the installation. The Commission has no competence in this matter.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 26.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3724/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Radiation from electromagnetic fields and its effect on public health

Is the Commission aware of any research into the effects of electromagnetic fields (created by telecommunication masts and overhead electricity wires) on human health or that of livestock grazing around these fields? If no research has been carried out, would the Commission consider undertaking research into the effects on public health of radiation from electromagnetic fields? If public health is found to be threatened in some way, would the Commission consider introducing legislation to enable local, regional or national authorities to regulate proposals to erect telecommunications masts?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3491/98 and P-3724/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

In June 1998 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields(1). It takes account of the scientific opinion of the International commission on non-ionising radiation, supported by the Commission's scientific steering committee. This text is currently being discussed by the Council, which has also transmitted the text for opinion to the Parliament.

The results of current and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting procedure provided in this text.

(1) COM(98) 268 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2951/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: EU aid for private storage

Pigmeat prices are currently very low since farmers expanded production following a period of high prices. The EU has used the export refund instrument to ward off the crisis. Unfortunately not all products receive export refunds, e.g. some products exported to the Far East.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that products exported to the Far East that do not receive refunds can receive aid for private storage?

Does the Commission not think it would be reasonable to provide such aid since one of the competitors on the market is the USA, which does not set environmental requirements but does give its producers export aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

On 26 September 1998 the Commission introduced an aid scheme for the private storage of pigmeat under Regulation (EC) 2042/98 of 25 September 1998(1). Cuts of pigmeat for export to the Far East are among the eligible products, so exports to that region thus qualify under the scheme.

(1) OJ L 263, 26.9.1998.