ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it stated its support for "the promotion of quality products, including raw materials that can be added to the various canning preparations, such as canning liquids, and in particular olive oil, for which it calls for measures to ensure that the price of olive oil is in line with the international price, in order to maintain the competitiveness of this kind of preparation, a symbol of the quality of the Community's canning industry", and called, in this context, "for the mechanism of olive oil refunds for the industry under the COM for olive oil to be maintained and increased".

Can the Commission say what measures have been taken to comply with Parliament's request?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0173/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Delays in aid to undertakings in deprived areas

With reference to the previous Written Question P-3945/97(1) of 4 December 1997 "State aids to undertakings in deprived urban areas" it is important to draw attention to the Law of 7 August 1997 No 266 "Urgent measures for the economy", which authorised (under Article 14(3)) expenditure of 46 billion lire in 1997 on business activities in suburban areas in accordance with the provisions of the regulation "Guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas" (Official Journal of the European Communities of 14 May 1997)(2). Approximately a year passed between the issuing of this law and the promulgation, in July 1998, of the corresponding implementing decree which actually gave effect to the law. The implementing decree required the local authorities concerned to issue a decision implementing the law at a practical level. Despite this fact, the city of Rome has not yet drawn up such a decision, even though the decree fixed the administrative deadline for 29 November 1998.

1. In view of the above, can the Commission say: whether the continuing delays in application undermine the objectives of the regulation issued by the EU aimed at providing aid to undertakings in deprived areas?

2. Whether the application of the national law referred to above in a number of urban areas and not in Rome may cause potentially harmful distortions of competition?

3. Whether it is able to give its overall view of the matter?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf on the Commission

(22 March 1999)

The Commission can only refer to the answers given to the Honourable Member's Written Questions P-2628/97(3) and P-3945/97(4).

The purpose of the guidelines on state aid for enterprises in deprived urban areas is to set out the criteria used by the Commission to assess the compatibility of state aid for deprived urban areas with the common market(5). They are clarifications for the Member States, not an invitation to grant aid. It is for the Member States to take the relevant decisions; if they do so, they are required to submit their projects for approval by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 99.

(2) OJ C 146, 14.5.1997, p. 6.

(3) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(4) OJ C 18, 16.6.1998.

(5) OJ C 146, 14.5.1997.
(2000/C 27 E/121) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/99
by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Council
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Groups hiring out mercenaries
There have recently been increasingly frequent reports of groups hiring out mercenaries, usually from
Europe and mainly to Africa, but also to other theatres of war.
1. Is the Council aware of these activities?2. Does the Council see action to combat such groups as a task to be performed at Union level?3. Has the Council already taken steps to prevent such machinations? If so, what steps? If not, why not?
Reply
(22 October 1999)
The Council has taken note of the numerous reports of foreign mercenaries of different nationalities in
countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola and in the Western Balkans.
The Council expressed its position on foreign mercenaries in particular in its Conclusions on Prevention
and Resolution of Conflicts in Africa of 2 June 1997, in which Member States have committed themselvesto study the possibility of taking further measures to restrain their citizens from acting as mercenaries inviolent conflicts.
(2000/C 27 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/99
by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Authorisation to market Austrian products in Italy
Time and again Austrian manufacturers of technical products encounter problems when exporting their
goods to Italy. These problems are due to the delay in obtaining authorisation to market these products inItaly. (This may in fact constitute an insurmountable barrier to market access for manufacturers who, beingof a typically Austrian size, do not have the financial resources to see such lengthy and expensiveprocedures through.)
It takes Austrian manufacturers of trailers for transporting semi-liquid manure, for example, excessive time
and effort to obtain certificates of roadworthiness for their products in Italy. As this measure has the sameimpact as quantitative restrictions, it has an adverse effect on the free movement of goods within theUnion.
Please indicate:
1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?2. Has it already taken action to prevent it, and if so, what action?
3. Or does it intend to do so?C 27 E/98 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0037/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Cat skins used for "educational purposes"

In Italy a catalogue advertising teaching aids for middle schools contains an advertisement for cat skins to be used for physics experiments. This has caused outrage among Italian animal-protection organizations.

Teachers themselves say that the experiments can be carried out perfectly well using a woollen cloth instead of an animal skin. How "educational" is it to give children who are still growing the skin of a species of animal which, in many cases, is waiting at home to play with them? According to the publisher of the catalogue - one of the most trustworthy in Italy - the cat skins are imported from Germany and presumably Germany supplies them not only for Italy.

Does the Commission consider:

1. that it should sanction Germany for carrying out this cruel trade;

2. that it should warn Italy and the other Member States against purchasing equipment that is evidence of cruelty against animals and, even worse, animals kept as pets;

3. that it should remind Italy and the other countries of the Union that laws have existed for some time to protect animals and prevent them from being mistreated and killed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 1999)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the trade of cat skin for experimental or other purposes is not covered by any Community legislation.

In the absence of Community competence applicable to this area, the Commission is unable to take any action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Possibility of a new Eurotax in Italy

Is the Commission aware that the Italian Chief Government Accountant, Andrea Monorchio, has stated that, in order to balance the national budget by 2002, as required by the Stability Pact, Italy will need to take measures costing approximately ITL 60 000 billion and will be required to increase taxes?

Does it consider that an increase in taxes and the possible introduction of a new Eurotax will be damaging to the Italian economy?

Has the Italian Government ever discussed with the Commission the possible introduction of a second Eurotax?

Did the suggestions made by the Commission to the Italian Government as to how to ensure compliance with the Stability Pact include that of increasing taxation?

What would be the consequences for Italy of the d'Alema government failing to balance the national budget?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 1999)

The Commission assessed the Italian fiscal position on the occasion of the presentation of the Italian stability programme 1999-2001, which was approved by the Ecofin Council on 8 February 1999.

The stability programme indicates that the corrective measures required in 1999, 2000 and 2001 amount to 0,4 %, 0,2 % and 0,1 % of gross domestic product (GDP) respectively. If additional interventions are necessary, the Italian government has committed itself to "take such measures, if needed". The budgetary targets for 2002 will be announced in May, when the "Documento di programmazione economica e finanziaria" for 2000-2002 will be presented to the Parliament.

The Italian government has never mentioned to the Commission the possibility of a new "eurotax". The Commission has never indicated an increase of fiscal pressure as a desirable strategy to reduce the budget deficit. On the contrary, the Commission considers that a sound budgetary policy should be based on the control of current expenditure.

The economic consequences of non-compliance with the requirements of the Stability and growth pact are clearly indicated in the European Council Resolution on the Stability and growth pact(1) of 17 June 1997 and in Council Regulations (EC) 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and (EC) 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit(2).

(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997.

(2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Protection of the Tuscan archipelago park and the island of Elba

The Tuscan archipelago park and the commune of Marciano have delivered a negative opinion on exploitation of the EURIT-Eurelba mine because of the scenic and natural beauty of the area concerned.

Florence district (a State body) has however asked that the mine be exploited for another five years. Does the Commission not think that this initiative, which will cause serious damage to the area, conflicts with European environmental regulations which protect the island of Elba?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

It appears, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, that the situation to which he refers is outside the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1). The request by the Florence district for the prolongation of the exploitation of the already existing mine does not appear to be a project covered by the Directive.

In contrast, Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) could be concerned in so far as the situation described can be considered covered by the provision set out in Article 6, paragraph 2, which states "Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive".

This provision of Directive 92/43/EEC is currently applicable to special protection areas (SPA) identified under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(3). The area mentioned by the Honourable Member is not an SPA under Directive 79/409/EEC. However it is mentioned as an important bird area (IBA) in the list of the important bird areas in Europe compiled by the International council for bird preservation. In principle, it should have been classified as an SPA under Directive 79/409/EEC.

In the light of the above, a letter requesting information has been sent to the Italian authorities. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(13 October 1999)
The Commission has examined the national legislation implementing the package travel Directive (90/314/
EEC) in Greece, Italy and Spain, and in all other Member States. A report on the implementation of theDirective will be released shortly.
As a result of this examination, infringement procedures are pending against Italy (relating to the non-
implementation of a system of travel guarantees, as foreseen by Article 7 of the Directive), and Greece(where maritime passenger carriers are exempted from the obligation to furnish the security foreseen byArticle 7). In both cases, the Commission has decided to bring the matter before the Court of justice.
Concerning the implementation of the Directive in Italy, the Commission is at this time examining the
question whether the limited scope of application of the Italian legislative decree 111/95 is in line with theDirective. While the Directive applies to all who, other than occasionally, organise or sell package travel,the Italian regulation applies only to those holding an authorisation to organise or sell packages.
Finally, the complaints concerning the implementation of European directives by Member States may be
addressed by anyone at any time to the Commission. The Commission examines these complaints withgreat attention. In the case of the package travel Directive and the three above-mentioned Member States,no complaints have until now been received that would indicate a need to open other infringementproceedings.
(2000/C 27 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1633/99
by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(13 September 1999)
Subject: Threat to birdlife
Is the Commission aware that mechanised cockle harvesting in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, poses
a threat to birds and their habitat and that this may be in breach of Directives 79/409/EEC (1)and 92/43/
EEC (2) What action will the Commission take to rectify this?
(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(8 October 1999)
The Commission is not aware that mechanical cockle harvesting in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland,
poses a threat to birds and their habitats.
Strangford Lough has been classified by the United Kingdom as a special protection area (SPA) pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. It has also
been proposed as a site of Community importance pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EECof 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Member States musttake steps to avoid any disturbance of the birds, for which this site has been classified as a SPA, as well asany deterioration of their habitats.
The Honourable Member is invited to submit further details on the nature and extent of the threat to the
birds and their habitats so that the Commission can investigate the matter with the United Kingdomauthorities.C 27 E/154 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/99

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Freedom of treatment

Ketha Berardi is a 10 year old girl with leukemia whose parents have decided no longer to subject her to chemotherapy because of the serious side-effects it has; they intend to resort to the treatment offered by Professor Di Bella.

At the request of the doctors treating her, however, juvenile court judges have ruled that the chemotherapy must continue and have threatened to deprive them of their parental authority.

Leaving aside any medico-scientific assessment of chemotherapy and the treatment offered by Professor Di Bella, does the Commission not think that the behaviour of the Italian doctors and judges conflicts with the principle of freedom of treatment which should be one of the rights of European citizens as mentioned by Parliament in recital C of its resolution A4-0075/97(1) on the status of non-conventional medicine?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

(1) OJ C 182, 16.6.1997, p. 67.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0588/99

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Revisions to the Commission proposals in COM(92) 56 final

What revisions have been made to the Commission proposals (COM(92) 56 final)(1) on the security measures applicable to classified information produced or transmitted in connection with EEC or Euratom activities, of 24 February 1992, in respect of the classification as confidential of information transmitted on Sellafield by the United Kingdom authorities to Euratom or the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Honourable Member is invited to note that the proposal she cites has been withdrawn by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 72, 21.3.1992, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0070/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Discrimination between Union citizens engaging in research in the United Kingdom

The British government body responsible for awarding grants for scientific research at university level (EPSRC) has rejected an application submitted in due form by an Italian citizen on the grounds that he is not a British citizen. As an Italian citizen, apparently, he would have been entitled to the admission fees for the post-graduate course, but not to a maintenance grant (roughly £6400).

Does the Commission agree that this could be regarded as discrimination between European Union citizens, not least in view of the fact that British citizens have full access to the corresponding funds for research in Italy?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

To answer the question raised by the Honourable Member, it should be noted that the Community rules as interpreted by the Court of Justice guarantee on the one hand the equal treatment of Community students and national students as regards access to education and training (Article 6, 126 and 127 of the EC Treaty) and, on the other hand, the equal treatment of Community workers and their children. The latter right is more comprehensive and is notably enshrined in Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1), and also includes the right, under certain conditions, to draw social benefits reserved for nationals in this area.

Students who are not workers (or members of a worker's family) are entitled to be treated on a par with students of the host Member State, pursuant to the EC Treaty, as regards any aid to cover enrolment and tuition fees. Hence, as regards access to education, the principle of equal treatment means in practice that all educational establishments must accept students from other Member States under the same conditions as national students. Therefore no additional charges may be required on the basis of nationality.

However, students who are nationals of another Member State and who are not workers (or members of a worker's family) are not entitled to aid to cover subsistence costs or so-called maintenance grants intended to help students to live in the locality. The Commission considers that the question raised is a matter for the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0038/99

by Giorgio La Malfa (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Urban Forum measures in the Mediterranean

The European Parliament adopted an amendment aimed at involving the network of Urban Forums in the measures covered by budget heading B4-0306.

By virtue of this amendment the budget line provides for the use of financial resources for projects to be carried out in the Mediterranean basin, in which a number of Central and Eastern European countries are involved.

Can the Commission say what specific steps it is taking to respond to this clear recommendation by the European Parliament, especially in view of the importance of environmental management policy between the two shores of the Mediterranean?

Furthermore, what are the planned timescale and practical arrangements for consultation with the Commission's partners and in particular with the network of Urban Forums, with a view to the implementation of the measures awaited by Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

The remarks relating to heading B4-306 in the European Union's general budget for the 1999 accounting period(1) calls for a widening of the activities of the European Forum's network for sustainable development to cover the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) without any specific mention of the Mediterranean countries. For the record the urban forum's network already includes some Mediterranean members, namely: in Italy there are Venice and Terni, in Spain there are Grenada and Bilbao and in Greece there is Volos.

On 15 January 1999 the Commission took the step of bringing together a certain number of representatives of European-Forum-Network members in order to contemplate the conditions for extending the network within the CEECs. That thinking process is still continuing and could result in the final touches being made to a project during the spring of 1999.

(1) OJ L 39, 12.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0771/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Traditionally made ice cream

An application for registration of the designation "helado artesano" pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) 2082/92(1) on certificates of specific character was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJ C 329/97) on 31 October 1997. No decision has yet been taken.

Is there any reason why it should not be possible for consumers to distinguish between traditionally made ice cream and industrially produced ice cream?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Cross-border medical treatment

The Court has recently made a number of rulings relating to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty and Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 with regard to obtaining medical treatment and/or medicines in a Member State other than the competent Member State(1).

1. Does the Commission know how many people use medical services in a Member State other than the competent Member State?

2. If not, does the Commission agree that further research is needed into this matter inter alia in order to see whether, as a consequence of the above rulings by the Court, it is necessary to amend Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71(2)?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

Firstly, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it does not have recent data on the number of persons who obtain medical treatment and/or medicinal products in a Member State other than the competent Member State.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion on the need for a study analysing the consequences of the case law of the Court of Justice, as enshrined in the Kohll and Decker judgments, for the social security systems of the Member States and for Community law. It will therefore take the necessary measures to launch such a study.

(1) Case C-158/96 (Kohll) and Case C-120/95 (Decker).

(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.