ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0489/98 by Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Report on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages

With a view to the approximation of excise duty rates, a system of minimum rates of excise duty was introduced with Directive 92/84/EEC ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29. )). Pursuant to Article 8 of that Directive, the Council is to examine the rates of duty every two years and, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, adopt the necessary measures.

That examination is to be carried out on the basis of a report and, where appropriate, a proposal from the Commission. In addition to competition between the different categories of alcoholic drinks, the report is to take into account the proper functioning of the internal market, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider objectives of the Treaty.

An initial Commission report to the Council and the European Parliament dated 13 September 1995 proposed in essence that the approximation of the minimum rates of duty for alcoholic products be postponed until further investigations and consultations had been concluded.

No second report has been published. Pursuant to the Directive referred to above, it is now more than one year overdue.

When will the Commission submit to the European Parliament a report on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages?

How does the Commission account for the fact that that report is already more than one year overdue?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-37/98 by Mr Miller ((OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 110. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0250/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: The absence of a common European Noise Directive

Given the Community's concern for the health and well-being of the citizens of Europe, and given the clear aims of the Environmental Directives, why have these aims not been 'streamlined' into a Directive on Noise Pollution?

Will the Commission acknowledge that this is long overdue and that it should be undertaken as a matter of some urgency?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Commission is already working to produce effective measures on noise, as announced in its 1996 green paper on future noise policy ((COM(96) 540 final. )).

18 February 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission by equipment used outdoors ((COM(98) 46. )). Early in 1999 the Commission expects to adopt a proposal for a framework directive on environmental noise. This will require harmonisation of aspects such as perception of effects, mathematical computation, monitoring and measurements, the mapping of noise, and abatement plans.

A major conference is planned for May 1998, in Copenhagen at which the Parliament has been invited to be represented. Draft terms of reference of working groups have already been widely circulated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (3 March 1998)

Subject: EU ban on the import of meat from hormone-treated animals (ruling of the WTO Appeals Panel)

Pursuant to the ruling handed down by the WTO Appeals Panel, the EU is entitled to introduce, on a scientific basis, what it feels is an appropriate level of consumer protection which may be more stringent than that derived from international public health standards.

1. For which specific areas must the required scientific evidence for possible risks be produced?

2. Which experts have been commissioned by the EU to provide this evidence?

3. How much money is available for these scientific studies?

4. Are the Member States involved as well?

5. What scientific studies are to be carried out, and when will they begin?

6. With what level of funding and with what measures is the federal government supporting the scientific case against meat treated with hormones?

Answer (8 June 1998)

Under the Treaty, the Commission is competent to represent the Community in the WTO and therefore before the Panel and the Appeals Panel.

The Honourable Member's questions should consequently be put to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0396/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Assistance for frontier regions

Austria, as the country with the longest common frontier with the countries applying for Community membership, will have to cope directly with the new circumstances created by Europe's enlargement to the East. That is one reason why there is increasingly vocal support in Austria for demands for special assistance to compensate the frontier regions for the problems they are expected to face.

Has Austria officially requested the European Union for special assistance for its frontier regions?

What are the Commission's views and position on this subject?

What form does the Commission consider any such assistance to the frontier regions might take?

What level of funding would be envisaged?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Austrian authorities have presented a paper to the Commission proposing a special programme for assistance to regions of the Community bordering the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs).

Regions bordering the CEECs may feel the impact of the opening of markets and of enlargement more quickly and intensively than other regions, but they will also benefit from their closeness to new markets providing new opportunities. The importance of these new markets for Community producers is evidenced by the rapid growth in trade between the Community and the CEECs and the increasing surplus of the Community's trade balance with them. While wages in CEECs are significantly below Austrian levels, this is not reflected directly in the cost of products, since the productivity of Austrian workers may be expected to be higher. Furthermore, the impact of enlargement, in particular in sensitive areas, will be softened through transitional arrangements.

Many of the border regions are already assisted by the structural funds. The new German Länder and Burgenland are at present, and are likely to remain, objective 1 regions. Most of the other border regions in Germany, Austria and Italy currently receive assistance under objective 5b. Given that under the new objective 2, it is foreseen that the Member States will be able to present national criteria for the selection of a significant share of their assisted areas, they can include border areas if they consider them to face specific problems.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes to maintain the Community initiative Interreg which, together with the PHARE-cross border cooperation (CBC) programme, is an appropriate instrument for addressing the problems of the border regions with the CEECs. The specific design of Interreg for the new programming period has not been decided, but it will leave sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of the border regions, as the Member States may propose the regions to be covered and the projects to be supported.

Thus, while border regions will be particularly affected by enlargement of the Community, the structural policy instruments proposed in 'Agenda 2000' ((COM(97) 2000. )) provide sufficient scope and flexibility to address these issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Crisis on the olive-oil market

The crisis on the Italian olive-oil market, and the fact that final demand for packaged oil has fallen by 7.2% in the last year, has prompted Assitol Oliva and Federolio to shed part of their work-force. The trend does not seem to be halting and is thus causing increasing anxiety.

1. Does the Commission not consider such action ill-timed, given that the new 'olive-oil' COM has not yet been approved at Community level and employees should consequently not be dismissed before new rules have been laid down?

2. In view of the emergency, does it not believe that the maximum guaranteed production volume should be raised and national production ceilings imposed?

3. Will it establish a genuine labelling system to preserve the quality of extra virgin olive-oil and afford certainty on that point, since this might help more than any other measure to ensure that Italian oil, which has a protected designation of origin, can compete on European and world markets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

The Commission is aware of the reduction in the quantities of olive oil packed in Italy and enjoying consumption aid, due particularly to the current relatively low level of this aid (ECU 12 per 100 kilograms).

This situation is being looked at in the context of work which should result in a proposal for reform of the current market organisation for olive oil. As part of this work, the Commission is considering whether to abolish consumption aid, a possibility which Parliament appears to view favourably.

It is therefore not surprising that the two principal associations of Italian packers to which the Honourable Member refers should have to adapt their structures to the new situation, in particular by reducing the staff working on the submission and checking of applications for aid by their associates.

As part of the preparatory work on the reform of the market organisation for olive oil, the Commission is looking carefully at the suggestions made by the Honourable Member, including an increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity and the fixing of maximum quantities for each producer Member State and the introduction of new marketing standards to protect extra-virgin olive oils more effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0774/98 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (5 March 1998)

Subject: DAPHNE projects

Will the Commission state what projects have been approved as part of the DAPHNE initiative, how many Portuguese projects were submitted and why none of the latter have been approved?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

428 projects were submitted in 1997 under the Daphne initiative. 47 of these were accepted by the Commission to receive financial support. Only two of the 428 projects were submitted by Portuguese non-governmental organisations (NGOs). One was ineligible for consideration on technical grounds - the sum requested was ECU 110, whereas for administrative reasons, the guidelines stated that the minimum subvention which could be considered was ECU 10 000. The other project was rejected after evaluation as lacking added-value at European level and as lacking the necessary main partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/98 by John Corrie (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: EU aid to Cyprus

How much money has come in the last ten years to Cyprus? How much was spent on the Greek side and how much on the Turkish side - and on what projects?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The following appropriations were allocated to Cyprus under the third and fourth financial protocols:

Third protocol (1990 - 1994)

European Investment Bank (EIB) loans from own resources: ECU 44 million EC grants: ECU 13 million EC venture capital: ECU 5 million

Fourth protocol (1995 - 1998)

EIB loans from own resources: ECU 50 million EC grants: ECU 22 million EC venture capital: ECU 2 million

The appropriations under the third protocol have been fully utilised. Execution of appropriations under the fourth protocol is in hand. The financial protocols were concluded with the Cypriot Government for the benefit of the entire island.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0843/98 by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission (11 March 1998)

Subject: EU support for the holding of elections in Togo

In the context of the forthcoming presidential elections in Togo, a Commission mission has published a set of official recommendations to ensure the complete transparency of the poll.

As part of the financial aid for the holding of these elections, it appears that a Commission expert is to be instructed to assist the National Electoral Commission set up by a law of 9 September 1997, all of whose members - half of them from the presidential majority, half from the opposition - have already been sworn in on their appointment.

1. Has the Commission expert yet been appointed, and if not, when will this happen?

2. What will be his precise terms of reference?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)

Compliance with democratic principles and the rule of law in Togo require any presidential election there to be completely above board and the lead-up to it open and fair.

In reply to the Honourable Member's question, a specialist was sent out earlier this month to determine whether and how support could be given to the belatedly established national electoral commission in light of the fact that the first round of presidential elections is set for June this year.

The Commission intends to continue very close monitoring of the elections in conjunction with the Member States. It is supporting campaigns by Togolese NGOs to inform the public of the elections and will assist with a training programme for those bodies involved in the electoral process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Reproductive health

When is the work currently being conducted by DGIB with a view to the drawing up of a policy on reproductive health, including combating HIV, likely to be completed and published? Is the Commission committed to ensuring there is a single Commission-wide policy ensuring that reproductive health is made a priority in all development programmes supported by DG I, DG IA, DGIB, DGVIII and ECHO? Will the European Parliament be consulted about this?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (23 March 1998)

A new Commission communication is planned for 1998 that will outline the Commission's policies and strategies for development cooperation relating to support for population and reproductive health activities, in view of next year's fifth anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations International conference on population development (ICPD) programme of action. The communication will draw upon existing policies and programmes in health, population, family planning, maternal health, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), gender integration and sexual exploitation. The Commission intends to consult fully with the Parliament and Member States on the content of this communication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0601/98 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation by Member States of Directive 91/156/EEC

Can the Commission provide a list of which Member States have implemented the provisions of Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )), pursuant to Article 2.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that all Member States have implemented the provisions of Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )), except Spain.

The list of national provisions communicated by the Member States concerning Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )) is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/98 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: EU's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and the post customs clearance recovery of customs duty from importers

The GSP is a broad trade policy regime designed to assist poorer, less developed countries by permitting products from certain countries to enter the EU at a preferential rate of customs duty.

Importers, in order to claim this preferential rate from the respective Member States's customs authority, must include a duly authenticated GSP Certification of Origin (Form A). This Form A is issued by a government authorized authority in the beneficiary countries and supplied to the EU importer by the foreign exporter.

However, it appears that a large number of these certificates have been issued fraudulently or incorrectly in respect of textile products from Bangladesh, thus rendering them invalid. Consequently, a company in my constituency is now faced with the prospect of having to pay a significant amount of customs duty. These companies/importers cannot be liable for the ineffective implementation and administration of agreements negotiated by the Commission.

Has the Commission undertaken an investigation to establish how these unauthentic certificates were issued in the first place?

If so, what conclusion has this investigation come to?

What provisions has the Commission made for companies, such as in my constituency, who accepted these unauthentic certificates in good faith?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

A Community fact-finding mission to Bangladesh, in November and December 1996 conducted joint enquiries, with the Bangladeshi authorities, on the authenticity and regularity of certificates of origin Form A which were presented in the Community, between 1994 and 1996, for consignments of textile goods, imported under cover of the generalised system of preferences.

As a result of the Community findings, the Bangladeshi authorities withdrew some 15 000 certificates of origin Form A. The preferential status of a further 10 000 certificates issued in the period mentioned above has yet to be established.

The obligations of all of the parties involved are clearly defined by the Community customs code, and they have been confirmed regularly by the Court of justice. Recent judgments by the Court of justice have upheld the principle that, for the importers, reliance on the validity of a certificate of origin is part of the normal 'commercial risk' which they have to assume.

Such problems in the past prompted the Council to ask the Commission to propose a solution for the post-clearance recovery of customs debts. To put this idea into its global setting, the Commission prepared a communication on the management of preferential tariff arrangements ((COM(97) 402 final. )). This issue is being discussed in the Economic and social committee, in the Council and in the Parliament, so that appropriate measures can be taken to ensure the sound management and control of these arrangements by all of the parties concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Multilateral Agreement on Investment

The member countries of the OECD are currently negotiating the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). The most recent draft of this agreement contains a number of provisions which could jeopardize the freedom of the European Union to manage the fishing industry in the Community according to its own priorities and policies. It could also threaten the ability of the EU to fulfil the undertakings given within certain international treaties and conventions which the EU has signed.

The provisions which seem particularly worrisome include:

- the ban on performance requirements;

- the application of the principle of 'national treatment' to all investors;

- the principles of standstill and roll-back on reservations.

Has the Commission made an assessment of the possible impact of the MAI on the EU fishing industry, including the catching, processing and distribution sectors? Can the Commission demonstrate that the MAI will not curb, in any way, the ability of the Community to establish and implement policies for the conservation of fish stocks and the management of Community fisheries?

Has the Commission, or indeed any party to the negotiations, conducted an analysis of the impact of the MAI on existing international conventions which the EU and/or the Member States have signed, such as the UN Law of the Sea and its associated Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Stocks, as well as various regional fisheries management bodies?

What assurances can the Commission give that the reservations which the Commission and certain Member States intend to table will provide adequate protection for Community fisheries, both now and in the future, and that it will not be forced to rescind them at some point in the future?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

The Multilateral agreement on investment (MAI), currently negotiated in the context of the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD), is intended to cover all sectors of the economy, including the fisheries sector. Since the negotiations are continuing, an evaluation of the impact of the MAI on the fishing industry and existing international, regional and bilateral conventions is difficult to make. The Commission is committed to ensuring that the MAI will not put obstacles in the way of present measures in the field of common fisheries policy and their implementation.

Negotiators are actively working on solutions to preserve the continuation of existing bilateral, regional and international agreements related to the conservation and management of fish stocks and their further development.

The Commission and some Member States have tabled preliminary exceptions in order to protect measures taken in the framework of the common fisheries policy, as well as present and future bilateral fisheries agreements, from the disciplines of the MAI. To be effective all Member States have to table similar exceptions. The Commission discusses with all Member States the formulation of such exceptions.