ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Television without frontiers

With the 1997 Television Without Frontiers Directive up for review in 2002, new ideas are already emerging on key issues that the review ought to tackle, such as promoting the distribution and production of European television programmes.

The coproduction of television programmes involving a number of Community Member States has been somewhat neglected, and is a leading factor in moves to enable producers to encourage collaboration between public and private networks and actors and other professionals who routinely work together in the making of television productions.

Will the Commission say whether television producers have held preliminary discussions with a view to encouraging genuinely European coproductions involving television networks and producers and other professionals from the television industry across the Community?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the MEDIA and MEDIA II Programmes and to the MEDIA Plus Programme, which started on 1 January 2001. One of the aims of the Media Programme is to promote the distribution and production of European television programmes. The Media Programme supports European television productions (fiction, documentaries and animated films) involving no less than two broadcasters, and preferably more, in several Member States participating or cooperating in the programme, belonging to different language zones. The specific objective is to promote the movement, in the Community and outside it, of European television programmes produced by independent companies by encouraging cooperation between broadcasters, on the one hand, and independent European distributors and producers, on the other hand.

During the Media II Programme (1996-2000) the Community has supported in total 353 European television co-productions with a total financial contribution of 39 421 400.

The main organisations representing professional producers and broadcasters have always been consulted when the Commission has prepared the proposals for the various Media Programmes (MEDIA, MEDIA II and MEDIA Plus).

A reexamination of the provisions of the Television Without Frontiers Directive is planned for the end of 2002. In the meantime, the Commission will continue to hold consultations with the parties concerned in a spirit of transparency. In particular, a study was recently launched on the evaluation of the impact of the measures concerning the promotion of the distribution and production of television programmes in the European audiovisual sector. As part of this study, two public symposia will be organised in order to give all concerned an opportunity to make their contribution. In addition, at the beginning of 2002, the Commission will publish a consultation document based, among other things, on the results of this study. It will invite all the parties concerned to send it their comments in writing, and will conduct a series of hearings in 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Forest reproductive material registration and protection

Will the Commission take steps to protect the Community seed stands registered under Directives 66/404/EEC(1), 71/161/EEC(2) or 1999/105/EC(3) on the Marketing of Forest Reproductive Materials which currently may be felled without any suitable assessment?

In Ireland, the State Forestry Board Coillte Teo has felled over 1 474 hectares of registered seed stands without any form of licensing which would require individual assessment, although the entire register covers only 3 715 hectares and only 20 % of Ireland's seed is from native sources. Further, by delegating the task of drawing up the national register of basic forest reproductive material required under the Directive to Coillte Teo, the country's largest harvester of timber, Ireland's practice is not in accordance with the Directives which specifically exclude any legal person or its members from maintaining the seed stand registers if they could derive financial gain from the measures it takes under the Directives.

Would the Commission, therefore, take steps to ensure that the native seed stands in every Member State that receives EU funding for afforestation, including Ireland, are registered under the Directive only by independent qualified parties and that, once registered, any felling is prohibited without suitable assessment and the attachment of necessary conditions to respect the purpose of the Directive?

(1) OJ B 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2326.

(2) OJ L 87, 17.4.1971, p. 14.

(3) OJ L 11, 15.1.2000, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Recognition of architectural diplomas

Recently I have received complaints from individuals who are already registered with the Technical Chambers of France and Germany and also wish to become members of the Technical Chamber of Greece, but have been unable to do so. They complain that their applications are either not forwarded or remain unanswered.

This is clearly a case of defective implementation of Directive 85/384/EEC(1) on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, in spite of the fact that this legislation was transposed into Greek law by the Presidential Decree of 7 April 1993. Could the Commission investigate to what degree the charges are justified and whether the Greek authorities responsible are applying the directive correctly?

(1) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member, which is why it initiated infringement proceedings on this matter in 1997.

The letter of formal notice was sent out on 30 June 1998 (and a reply received on 26 October 1998); a second letter, which remained unanswered, was then sent on 9 July 1999.

The reasoned opinion was delivered on 24 February 2000. Greece replied in two letters of 8 May 2000 and 13 November 2000 respectively.

Following a meeting with the Commission in Athens in June 2001, the Greek authorities sent a circular to the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) reminding it that it was obliged to comply with Presidential Decree 107/93 and register EU nationals holding architectural diplomas obtained in other Member States.

The Commission is in the process of assessing the specific action taken following this circular before it decides whether to bring this matter before the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2122/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents

The European Court of Justice recently condemned Greece for its delay in transposing into Greek legislation Community Directive 94/56/EC(1) establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents and rejected as inadequate the arguments put forward by the Greek government.

In view of the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice and the fact that the purpose of the Directive in question is to improve air safety and to prevent accidents and incidents, will the Commission say what progress has been made in implementing this Directive both in Greece and in the other Member States?

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents was adopted on 21 November 1994. Member States were to notify the Commission of measures taken to comply with it by 21 November 1996 at the latest.

The Commission instituted infringement proceedings against Greece and Luxembourg for failure to transpose the Directive, in which both of these Member States were found guilty.

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 5 April 2001 that, by failing to adopt and notify to the Commission within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 94/56/EC, Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Greek Government has just communicated to the Commission the text of law 2912/2001 published in the Official Journal of 9 May 2001, which transposes the Directive into Greek law.

Luxembourg alone has not yet notified the Commission of its measures transposing Directive 94/56/EC. Since the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 December 1999, Luxembourg has informed the Commission of the state of progress in the procedure to adopt measures transposing the Directive. According to this information, the Directive should be transposed before the end of this year.

By that time, therefore, all of the Member States will have transposed and will be applying this Directive, even if certain Member States occasionally fail to send the Commission investigation reports as the Directive asks them to do.

The Commission will see to it that this legislation is applied correctly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Asthma and food additives

Is the Commission aware of concerns that a widely used food preservative, sodium metabisulphite (E223), may be responsible for generating asthma attacks in some individuals?

Is the Commission sponsoring any research into this issue?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission is well aware of the fact that sulphiting agents such as sodium metabisulphite can generate asthma attacks in some individuals.

Indeed, the Scientific Committee on Food last evaluated sodium metabisulphite and other sulphiting agents in 1994(1). In its opinion, the Committee concluded that sulphiting agents do not pose a health hazard to the great majority of people, but that they may pose a serious hazard to some people suffering from asthma. It recommended that the use of sulphiting agents should be limited to those foods where there is a sound technological justification for their use, and that the presence of added sulphiting agents in food be labelled irrespective of the final amount present.

Furthermore, the question of intolerance to sulphiting agents has been addressed in the report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients, issued by the Scientific Committee on Food in September 1995.

Sulphiting agents are authorised as food additives in a range of foodstuffs, according to Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners(2), Annex III Part B. Sulphiting agents are effective anti-microbial agents preventing the growth of yeast, moulds and bacteria. They also prevent non-enzymatic and enzymatic browning.

The technological need for the use of the sulphiting agents in these foodstuffs has been established prior to authorisation according to the criteria for the authorisation of food additives.

The use of sulphiting agents in food, like all other additives, is labelled according to Directive 2000/13/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(3). Furthermore, the Commission is going to adopt shortly a proposal for amendment of the Directive foreseeing a compulsory labelling of allergens, including sulphiting agents. This proposal also covers the labelling of sulphiting agents in alcoholic beverages, which were exempt from the labelling of ingredients before. This allows the consumer suffering from intolerance against sulphiting agents to avoid foodstuffs in which these substances have been used.

(1) Opinion on sulphur dioxide and other sulphiting agents used as food preservatives, expressed on 25 February 1994.

(2) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995.

(3) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1974/01

by Imelda Read (PSE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Osteoporosis

On 8 September 2000 (E-2102/00(1)) Mr Byrne, on behalf of the Commission, informed us that a proposal for a Council recommendation concerning osteoporosis was in preparation and that it was the Commission's intention to forward the proposal to the Council by the end of last year.

Can the Commission specify what action is being taken and why no proposal has been put forward to date?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 144.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2001)

The Commission has published a scientific report on osteoporosis in the European Community(1) in 1998. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the underlying pathology of osteoporosis, it also covers clinical aspects of managing osteoporosis and has an emphasis on the prevention of osteoporosis in its conclusions.

As there have been no changes in the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis since the report, the Commission believes that the focus should be on encouraging next steps in meeting the recommendations of the report itself and using the report as an indicator to Member States in developing their best practices.

The new Community Public Health Programme(2), which is presently being examined by the European Parliament and the Council follows a three strand approach: Improving health information, Responding rapidly to health threats and Addressing health determinants, and is a move away from disease specific activity as in the past. The new programme aims to achieve a better focused approach and synergy between actions, with a view to setting up comprehensive coping and prevention strategies based on best practice.

Further activity following on from the scientific conclusions of the 1998 report could be accommodated under the existing Health Promotion Programme, but health promotion activities will fall under the new Public Health Programme in the future.

(1) Report on osteoporosis in the European Community Action for prevention. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, 1998.

(2) (COM(2000) 285 final 2000/0119(COD)(.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

In 1999, a dossier prepared by Mr Augusto Fichtner, a former employee of the JRC in Ispra, was submitted to OLAF, which pointed towards serious irregularities at the Centre pre-1997.

Can the Commission provide details of steps that have been taken to investigate this case? Has the current or the previous Commission conducted its own investigations into the allegations of corruption and mismanagement?

Can the Commission confirm whether a senior official at the JRC was also a managing director of various companies located in northern Italy at this time and, if so, is this in line with the provisions of the Staff Regulations?

Were contractors of the JRC paid on time, and were the findings of research undertaken on contract by the JRC divulged at any time to third parties?

Answer given by Mr. Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

An administrative enquiry has been conducted within the Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) in order to verify the allegations brought in the dossier referred to by the Honourable Minister.

Concerning the senior official at the JRC suspected of involvement in unauthorised external activities with companies located in the north of Italy, the Commission would point out that a disciplinary procedure had already been opened before the dossier concerning this case was produced. It was shown that the senior official was in fact involved in such activities. In the course of the disciplinary procedure, the appointing authority (AIPN) was informed by the Commission's medical service that, owing to his state of health, the senior official was unable to attend the hearing provided for by the staff regulations. He died a shortly afterwards.

As far as the other matters raised are concerned (in his dossier the writer mentions, among other things, delays in the payment of bills caused by the behaviour of the above-mentioned official), the administrative enquiry concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for effective action.

The results of the administrative enquiry carried out by the JRC have been communicated to OLAF (European Antifraud Office). OLAF has announced that an examination of this dossier has not led to the opening of an enquiry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Declining support for the accession of applicant countries and possible repercussions of referenda

1. Is the Commission aware that in those East European countries with which the negotiations on accession to the European Union are the most advanced public support for accession is declining, now that it is becoming increasingly evident what obligations accession entails and that accession will not necessarily bring about a rapid rise in the standard of living, greater socio- economic security or unlimited disbursement of European structural and cohesion funds?

2. In which applicant countries is there a possibility of a referendum being held on accession and in which countries is it already likely that this will happen after completion of the negotiations?

3. In which of the current Member States is there the possibility, on the basis of legal provisions or government intentions, that the population will be able to express its views on the admission of new member states? In particular, does the Commission anticipate a referendum in Austria where fears of an influx of job-seekers from new member states and concerns about the Temelin nuclear power station may be used as a means of gathering domestic political support?

4. How does the Commission view the possibility of referenda in the Member States, and how does it access this possibility in the applicant countries, particularly against the background of the statements made by Mr Verheugen in 2000 on the desirability of increasing the involvement of the electorate by holding referenda on such fundamental issues?

5. Does the Commission already have an emergency plan with regard to what should be done if the accession of one or more Member States is blocked at a late stage by decisions by the electorate, who find the pace of accession too fast or who pose conditions on accession other than those agreed during the negotiations or even totally reject the very principle of accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

The Commission closely monitors the state of public opinion on accession in the candidate countries via its delegation in each country, while its enlargement communication strategy provides factual information about all aspects of the accession process. A recent survey found an absolute (in some cases relative) majority of the population in each country in favour of its government's integration policy.

Individual countries may hold referendums in connection with their ratification of the accession treaty, if their constitutional and legal processes allow or require it. According to the Commission's information a referendum would be a constitutional requirement for ratification of the accession treaty in Romania and Slovakia.

The accession negotiations culminate in the signing of an accession treaty that then has to be ratified according to the constitutional procedures in each signatory country. The Commission sees no reason to give particular consideration to the outcome of the ratification process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Local authorities on the Union's external borders not consulted by the Commission in preparing its communication

In the conclusions of the Nice summit the Commission was called upon to propose a programme for the EU's frontier regions in order to strengthen their economic competitiveness. The Commission has in fact prepared a communication in which it considers the effects of enlargement in these areas and sets out its proposals. The communication is expected to be published in July, and to contain the following elements: situation of border areas and effects of enlargement in particular sectors; assessment of existing Community instruments; proposals for Community actions in border areas (basic structural investment in the context of the Trans-European Networks, EIB loans, support for SMEs and in particular cross-border cooperation, improving coordination between Phare/cross-border cooperation and Interreg, enhancing information, improving exploitation of training programmes, and the creation of a border areas task force within the Commission). The proposals will only be submitted for discussion to the Council when the relevant Member States' reactions have been heard.

This is an important programme which will affect the municipalities on the Union's external borders closely. In spite of this, their opinions were not heard during the preparation of the programme.

Why did the Commission fail to carry out consultation at local level when preparing this programme?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

On 25 July 2001, the Commission adopted a Communication on the impact of enlargement on the border regions adjacent to candidate countries including a Community Action for Border Regions(1).

The Communication is based on thorough analysis of border regions covering three main areas:

- the socio-economic situation of border regions and the likely effects of enlargement;

- existing Community support to border regions;

- possible measures to strengthen the competitiveness of border regions.

Within the limits of the financial perspective until 2006, as agreed by the Berlin European Council (24-25 March 1999), the Commission's Communication focuses on the improvement and enhancement of existing Community policies.

In drawing up the Community Action for Border Regions, the Commission took due account of detailed information on the requirements of border regions provided by the chambers of commerce of the relevant regions as well as by individual Member States concerned. In addition, the Commission took account of the views of local and regional authorities set out in various documents and expressed in the course of bilateral discussions with representatives of the border regions.

(1) COM(2001) 437 final.