ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1622/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 May 2000)

Subject: Error in authorising medical device

There are two manufacturers on the world market of products which enable cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to retain their hair, these being the Danish-Swedish firm Dignitana and the UK's Paxman.

Permission to sell medical equipment within the EU is subject to a special authorisation procedure. The higher the health risk, the more stringent the criteria for tests, documentation and safety measures.

Paxman's product is registered in the lowest class 1, whereas Dignitana's product is registered in class 2a. This means that there are significantly fewer criteria for the authorisation of Paxman's product. The UK's Medical Devices Agency has acknowledged that Paxman's product has been wrongly classified but Paxman has, nevertheless, been able to continue producing and selling its product in the EU.

What is the Commission's position on the erroneous classification of medical products? Does the Commission consider that erroneous classification of medical products causes distortion of competition? Should identical products not be placed in the same class? Which consideration weighed more heavily in the balance the free movement of goods or patient safety? Does the Commission believe that the wrongly classified product should be withdrawn from the market until it has undergone a correct authorisation procedure?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices(1) provides criteria for the classification of medical devices, which have been developed so as to ensure a high level of health protection. However, difficulties of interpretation do arise. The Commission is fully aware of the importance of a correct classification of devices to ensure safety, loyal competition and free movement of goods. Various mechanisms exist to solve problems of classification.

In case of a dispute between the manufacturer and the notified body, the matter will be referred to the national authority. In addition, guidelines for classification have been agreed between the Commission, Member States' authorities, notified bodies, the industry and other interested parties. These are updated whenever necessary. Notified bodies meet on a regular basis and discuss questions of classification. Furthermore, the Commission organises on a regular basis classification meetings with all interested parties, where common approaches on specific devices are consensually defined. As regards devices that nevertheless have been wrongly classified, the Directive foresees that Member States will oblige the manufacturer (or his representative) to correct the classification (including conformity assessment procedures and labelling) or, otherwise, to restrict, prohibit the device and to withdraw it from the market.

With reference to the particular case raised by the Honourable Member, a manufacturer who considers that he suffers from a erroneous classification, should address a request for intervention to the national authority.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Payment of contractors and suppliers

What is the Commission's policy on the timing of payments to its own contractors and suppliers? What is the length of time between delivery or invoice and payment which is suggested in the Commission's procedures, and what, if any, action is taken to monitor whether these targets are met?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

The Commission regularly checks the observance of payment periods by its departments.

In 1991 the Commission already set the target that payments should be executed within 60 days from the date of receipt by departments of a request for payment prepared in due form. Within the 60-day period, authorising departments have 40 days (for settlement and authorisation of the payment) and the horizontal departments have 20 days (endorsement by financial control, check on the validity of the discharge by the accountant, execution by the bank).

In 1995 the target set for Commission departments was that 95 % of operations should be completed within 60 days. In 1997, the Commission amended its contract policy so that in the event of late payment its creditors were entitled to claim late-interest payment.

Figures for 1999 show that across all departments the average period of payment (from the date of receipt of the invoice to the date on which the Commission bank account is debited) was 54,1 days. However, only 65,1 % of payments were completed with the 60-day period.

An interdepartmental working party consisting of representatives of financial units from the Directorates-General is currently looking into the root causes of under-performance and will propose improvements.

In Part Two of the White Paper Reforming the Commission: Action plan(1) the Commission confirms that one of the objectives of the reform is to achieve 95 % of payments within 60 days by 2002 (Action 10: Departments will be asked to set their own targets for meeting the Commission-wide target of payment in 60 days for 95 % of invoices by 2002 and to report on measures taken and results in their Annual Activity Report). The appraisal by the Commission of the outputs delivered by services will take into account this indicator.

In addition, the Commission will set up a central invoices register to allow better follow up (Action 11 of the White Paper).

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0130/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Administration of OLAF

Will the Commission ensure that officials do not make public pronouncements on guilt when a national prosecuting authority has decided to drop its inquiries into a case begun at the prompting of UCLAF/OLAF?

Will the Commission ensure that funding for approved projects may not be withheld simply because the Commission believes it has outstanding claims against other projects when no legal proceedings have begun to enforce its claim?

These questions relate to the Commission's behaviour in the case against the Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi (North-West Jutland Renewable Energy Centre), which was publicly branded a fraud by a Commission official although the fraud squad in Denmark had concluded that there is no evidence for the accusations.

The Commission has also blocked payments of a subsidy to a group of recipients, among which the Centre is only one party, and is thus punishing undertakings having absolutely no involvement in this case.

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Commission is not aware that one of its officials made a public statement on the matter of guilt in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

However, the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that a statement was made by one of the Office's officials on the fact that, in this case, an appeal had been lodged with the Prosecutor general in accordance with the provisions of the code of criminal procedure of Denmark against the decision by the Prosecutor not to press charges.

The Commission would point out that the matter of payments to beneficiaries is naturally assessed in the light of the protection of the Community's financial interests.

Other payments to the same beneficiaries in cases vitiated by irregularities may be suspended where necessary, or they may be recovered by offsetting in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities and its implementing details(1), and the internal procedures relating to the recovery of entitlements under the EC and Euratom Treaties.

To date, no final decision has been taken in the case to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, OJ L 315, 16.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0541/00

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2000)

Subject: Mental health

In view of the resolution on mental health adopted unanimously on 18 November 1999 at the meeting of the Council of Health Ministers, the conclusions of the European Summit conference held under the Finnish presidency and the observations by Mr Byrne, member of the Commission, concerning a set of measures in the field of mental health, does the Commission in fact intend to take measures in this area and if so what measures, particularly in view of quantitative and qualitative findings which reveal the serious impact of mental disorders on European citizens in many areas of their everyday life?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2000)

The Commission is currently developing a health strategy in which mental health will play a role. This strategy will take account of the resolution on mental health of the Health Council and the conclusions of the conference held under the Finnish Presidency.

Important developments in the area of mental health are already taking place under the Community action programmes on health promotion and health monitoring. A report on the mental health promotion of children has recently been published as a result of a project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0379/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Measures to provide information on the current denied-boarding compensation system

The Commission proposal COM(1998) 41 final(1) of 30 January 1998 proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 295/91(2) and established common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport.

In the proposal the Commission stated its intention of increasing information to passengers, which was deemed insufficient, in particular by displaying notices at check-in counters (Article 3). In addition, the Commission intended to launch an information campaign on passengers' rights to compensation when denied boarding.

Is the Commission aware that notices on passengers' rights in cases of overbooking are not displayed on check-in counters? Does it intend to take any measures to combat this?

Given the cases of malpractice by airlines of which the Commission is aware in which passengers have not received compensation, or have been only partially compensated, as a direct result of a lack of information, could the Commission indicate when it will carry out the information campaign to European citizens, and the various forms this will take?

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

The Commission has for some years been concerned about the implementation and effectiveness of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. It became aware of a number of cases in which passengers were not fully compensated, largely because they were not informed of their rights.

This led the Commission to propose, two years ago, the amendment of the Regulation. One aim of the amending regulation was to improve information for passengers by the display of notices at check-in points. However adoption of the regulation has not been completed by the Council. Consequently there is no obligation at present to put up notices at check-in counters.

Faced by delay in the adoption of the amendment, the Commission recently launched a study on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. The aim of the study is, first, to make an inventory of the legal measures that Member States have taken to apply the regulation and of the rules that airlines have laid down to deal with overbooking and, second, to assess how all these measures have worked in practice. The Commission will then consider whether further action is needed.

However the Commission well understands the necessity of ensuring passengers are informed about their rights, if they are to insist on their respect. For that reason, it plans to launch an immediate initiative to improve information to passengers. It intends to arrange for the publication and display, in airports, travel agencies and the offices of airlines, of a charter of all existing rights. This would cover compensation for denied boarding, among other things.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Accession negotiations with the Czech Republic

In its opinion on Poland's application for membership of the EU, the Commission stated that Poland must complete the process of compensating people whose property was expropriated.

Can the Commission say whether it has made such demands of the Czech Republic, where compensation for the expropriation of property in similar circumstances has not yet taken place?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0293/00, E-0294/00, E-0295/00, E-0296/00, E-0297/00, E-0298/00, E-0299/00, E-0300/00, E-0301/00, E-0302/00, E-0303/00 and E-0398/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The accession negotiations with the Czech Republic concern principally its acceptance of and alignment with the acquis of the European Union and its ability to satisfy the conditions for membership established by the European Council. As a Member State, the Czech Republic will have to adopt and implement all areas of Community legislation and policy, including the principles of free movement of people and freedom of establishment. The issue raised by the Honourable Member has to be seen foremost in that context, but obviously also the political criteria of Copenhagen play a role given the fact that they contain the protection of the human rights and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Commission is closely monitoring developments on these matters in all the candidate countries.

It is, however, important to notice that the issue put forward in these questions relates to events which took place before the entry into force of the EC Treaty. The so-called Benesch decrees will therefore play no role in the accession negotiations. Moreover, Article 295 (ex-Article 222) EC Treaty states that the Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership. The Commission is thus not in a position to intervene in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

However, the Czech Republic has been a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) since 1992. The implementation of the ECHR is the responsibility of the Council of Europe. Questions concerning issues arising under this convention should therefore be best addressed to the Council of Europe.

The Commission would furthermore refer the Honourable Member to the relevant provisions of the Czech-German declaration adopted on 21 January 1997 on mutual relations.

It is for the several reasons mentioned above, that the Commission finds it difficult to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: EU radon gas levels

Can the Commission state whether it has figures for the levels of radon gas present in public buildings and dwellings throughout the European Union and can it state whether or not these levels of gas create a possible hazard to public health in the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The Commission has carried out a survey of levels of natural radioactivity in Member States which was published in the form of an Atlas (Radiation Protection, 1993, Natural sources of ionizing radiation in Europe, EUR 14 470). It continues to collect information from national surveys.

With regard to the possible hazard to public health, the Commission published in 1990 Commission Recommendation 90/143/Euratom of 21 February 1990 on the protection of the public against indoor exposure to radon(1). In this Recommendation a reference level for remedial action of 400 becquerel per cubic meter is proposed for existing buildings.

The percentage of dwellings exceeding this level is in general very small, but the problem is more significant in some Member States (Finland, Sweden) and in certain regions.

(1) OJ L 80, 27.3.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1254/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Murder of the Irish lawyer, Rosemary Nelson

On 15 March last year the solicitor, Rosemary Nelson, died of injuries sustained in a car bomb attack.

A few months earlier, she had appeared before the Washington Human Rights sub-committee to denounce the death threats and verbal and physical abuse of which she was the victim. Officers of the Northern Ireland police force, the RUC, were named as being responsible for the abuse and the reason for it was her reputation as the IRA's lawyer. A report published by British-Irish Rights Watch claims that the British Government was aware of the threats to Rosemary Nelson.

1. Does the Council believe that the British Government was wrong not to include Rosemary Nelson in its protection programme?

2. Does the Council not think that there should be the greatest possible transparency in the inquiry into the murder, for which the RUC itself is apparently responsible?

3. Does the Council think it should ask the British Government to open its own inquiry into the murder?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The Honourable Member's questions relate to matters which are not within the Council's competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Unstable situation of AT3 staff at the JRC in Ispra

Temporary staff on three-year contracts with the JRC in Ispra have organised a trade union campaign designed to persuade the Centre's management to renew their contracts. The JRC's new policy for research staff provides for flexibility in the management of short-term projects and staff on three-year contracts account for 25 % of total staff and may not be re-employed on expiry of their contracts, but are replaced by new staff instead.

1. Is this constant three-year turnover of staff a rational policy?

2. Surely the failure to renew the contracts of staff who have proved to be excellent during their term of employment, replacing them with new staff who do not have the work experience acquired by AT3 staff, represents a senseless waste of resources?

3. Is it one of the objectives of the new research staff policy to introduce permanent instability for employees?

4. Would it not be more appropriate, in the interests of research and of the Centre carrying it out, to devise new selection procedures instead of the automatic turnover system, so as on the one hand to ensure continuity in research activities, especially in the case of single projects, and, on the other, end the system where staff are automatically replaced at the end of their contracts?

5. What are the Commission's views on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-0692/00 from Mr Speroni(1) and P-1734/00 from Mr Di Pietro(2).

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 206.

(2) See page 212.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0425/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Protection of animals during transport

In 1999 the European Commission issued five reports on veterinary missions undertaken in various Member States. The Commission's reports illustrate that in France, Italy, Greece, Belgium and Ireland, the provisions of Council Directive 91/628(1) (as amended by Council Directive 95/29(2)) on the protection of animals during transport are widely ignored.

What action does the Commission intend to take to require the Member States identified in these reports to enforce the Directive's provisions?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0340/00, E-0341/00 and E-0425/00 given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is aware, following the reports of its food and veterinary office and from the complaints of various organisations, that enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport is inadequate in many Member States. These problems are being kept under close review by the Commission and are drawn to the attention of the Member States' authorities as and when they occur. In particular, infringement proceedings in this field have been opened against one Member State and others are under preparation.

In addition, Article 13 of the Directive provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired by the Member States since the implementation of the Directive, possibly accompanied by proposals. The report will be presented to the Council shortly taking into account all available information.

Meanwhile, a working group of the standing veterinary committee has been established to consider problems in the implementation of the Directive in respect of long-distance transport. The Commission may consider amending Community legislation on the basis of the conclusions of the working group on transport and in the light of the experience acquired by Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0700/00

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Canary Islands import regulations

Can the Commission explain why the Canary Islands have different regulations for importing certified seed potatoes than other regions of the European Union and whether the present arrangements will ever change?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Community plant health regime, established by Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community(1) was adapted by Directive 94/13/EC(2) to accommodate the specific plant health situation in the Canary Islands. The remote and insular nature of the Islands and hence the peculiar plant health situation was acknowledged and the need for specific provisions in the Annexes to the Directive for the protection of the Canary Islands was foreseen.

However, the practical implementation of the integration of the Canary Islands into the Community plant health regime has not yet taken place, because an updated list specifying the harmful organisms of concern to the Canary Islands, with an indication of the phytosanitary measures considered appropriate, to be supplied by Spain, is still awaited.

Because of the exceptional geographical situation, which constitutes a severe handicap, the Canary Islands also benefit from the application of Regulation 1601/92 which is a regime of exemption from levies and/or customs duties on different products, including certified seed potatoes, imported directly from third countries. The quantity of goods entitled to benefit from the regime is fixed yearly based on the supply balance.

(1) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, as last amended by Commission Directive 1999/53/EC, OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 92, 9.4.1994.