ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0244/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Tuberculosis treatment in Asia and Africa

Given that the EU currently funds anti-Tuberculosis programmes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and that the Directly Observed Treatment Shortcourse (DOTS) has been found by the World Bank to be one of the most cost-effective medical interventions, will the Commission consider a proposal to extend funding to programmes in Asia and Africa if necessary by setting up a budget line to finance DOTS there?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

The Commission recognises the importance of the directly observed treatment shortcourse (DOTS) approach and shares the concern over the impact of tuberculosis (TB) in Africa and Asia. However the scale of the problem caused by tuberculosis (and by malaria and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), the other major communicable diseases associated with poverty) requires an extraordinary response from the international development community. The Commission has developed options for a major new commitment as part of a co-ordinated international response rather than through establishment of a specific tuberculosis (TB) budget line.

Recommendations are set out in the Communication on a Community programme for accellerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction. The Commission proposes a comprehensive approach through action across three areas: increasing impact from existing effective interventions including DOTS, action to increase the affordability of key pharmaceuticals and action to accelerate the development of new generations of diagnostics and treatments, which are sorely needed for tuberculosis.

The Commission provides extensive and increasing levels of support to the health sector in developing countries with commitments of over 700 million, or 8 % of the development budget, in 1998. Much of this support is directed at improving the organisation, management and performance of national health systems, including support to tuberculosis control programmes. Increasingly such support is provided as sectoral or budget support rather than as project support for disease specific programmes. The Commission will however invite proposals for innovative work related to the link between TB and HIV under the reproductive health budget line in 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0386/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Effects of Low-Frequency Active Sonar

Will the Commission indicate the precautions taken by civil and military authorities and vessels in EU waters to protect cetaceans against the effects of Low-Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Certain habitats and marine species are specifically protected by the Habitats Directive(1), which constitutes the major legal instrument for the protection of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna at Community level.

All of the cetacean species are included in Annex IV to the directive, which requires Member States to take any action needed in order to introduce a stringent system for the protection of said species in their natural range. In addition, the cetacean habitats included in Annex II to the directive (as applying to Tursiops truncatus and Phocoena phocoena) also require protection via the designation of appropriate areas.

However, implementing these measures falls within the powers of the Member States, and the directive does not oblige them to provide information as detailed as that set out in the questions. Therefore the Commission is in no position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1157/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Protected designation of origin (PDO) products: use of additives and preservatives in cheese-making

Bearing in mind that:

- the rules and specifications laid down for the production of Grana Padano DOC (controlled origin denomination) cheese do not provide for the use of preservatives and, more particularly, the additive E1105 (lysozyme),

- paragraph 2D of Ministerial Decree 209/1996, which implements Community Directives 94/34/EC(1), 94/35/EC(2), 94/36/CE(3), 95/2/EC(4) and 95/31/EC(5) by laying down rules on additives, specifies that an additive may be used provided it is not used to conceal the use of inferior raw materials or undesirable practices or techniques (including unhygienic practices),

- the preservative E1105 (lysozyme) is used in the production of Grana Padano DOC cheese because it makes it possible to use milk that does not comply with the hygiene standards laid down in Directive 92/46/EEC (Annex A, Chapter IV)(6),

- the Italian Minister of Health has confirmed, in a note of 18 June 1999 sent to the Commission (DG XXIV), that almost all the Italian milk that does not comply with those standards is used for the production of Grana Padano DOP or Parmigiano Reggiano DOP,

- the CSQA (body for the Certification of Quality Systems in the Agri-Food sector), the only certifying body recognised by the Italian government for the certification of Grana Padano, allows the addition of lysozyme as a preservative in its inspection plan even though it is not allowed by the production specifications for Grana Padano DOP.

In view of the foregoing,

- Can the use of the preservative E1105 be allowed even if there is no express provision for its use in the rules and specifications for the production of Grana Padano DOP, or has the Commission granted special exemptions?

- Is the use of lysozyme not regarded as an obvious subterfuge to allow DOP cheese to be made from milk that does not meet the requirements laid down in Directive 92/46/EC?

- Does the Commission regard lysozyme as completely innocuous to consumers' health?

(1) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 237 of 10.9.1994, p. 13.

(4) OJ L 61, 18.3.1995, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0805/01

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Economic crisis in Turkey

Despite the recent attempt by the IMF to save the Turkish economy by lending USD 11,4 billion, the Turkish lira has collapsed, making severe inroads into Turkey's foreign currency reserves, the stock market has plummeted and inflation and interest rates have risen sharply. This has revealed the underlying causes of the crisis facing Turkey with which the European Parliament is familiar: excessive state interventionism, the over-indebtedness of banks, money laundering, interventions by the political and military circles in the Turkish economy, the absence of democratic institutions, etc.

Will the Commission accept further delays in the modernisation of Turkey on the grounds of the currency crisis?

Will it restrict itself to the solutions imposed by the IMF or will it intervene, following moves in the USA?

How will it react if Turkey turns into a a new bankrupt Russia which imposed severe strains on the economy of the EU in 1998?

What proposals does the Commission have for addressing the crisis, given that the recent partnership agreement between the EU and Turkey makes no provision for specific policies in this area?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Although Turkey is in the throes of economic and financial crisis, the modernisation programme under way should not be adversely affected. On the contrary, it should be an incentive for speeding up economic reform, as set out in the framework agreement between Turkey and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

At the Stockholm Council on 23 March 2001 the Community expressed support for this programme, which was drawn up in consultation with the IMF

As far as the Commission is aware, the United States does not provide bilateral aid, only multilateral aid through the IMF.

The Commission believes that actively pursuing the pre-accession strategy for Turkey can only underpin the country's efforts to overcome the current crisis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense (NMD) shield.

The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the initiative is a threat to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that the NMD system is incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race.

If the US Administration really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK government. One part of the shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What is the Commission's view of the National Missile Defence system?

2. Does the Commission believe that the NMD system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972? If so, on what grounds?

3. Does the Commission share the fears of Robin Cook, Britain's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of a new arms race if the United States develops the missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the Commission reject Mr Cook's views?

4. In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the Commission support the siting of part of the missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

This is an issue of defence which falls outside the scope of Community competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0434/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Treaty of Nice and changes to Article 133 concerning intellectual property and trade in services

In the light of the new provisions of Article 133(5), the commercial aspects of intellectual property as well as trade in services (subject to the listed derogations) will now fall within the Community's powers and responsibilities in respect of the common commercial policy. However Article 133(7) has further provisions restricting the extension of those powers with respect to international negotiations and agreements on intellectual property issues not covered by Article 133(5).

Pursuant to the existing provisions of Article 133(5), the European Parliament must be consulted specifically on the proposed changes to Article 133 of the Treaty.

Will the Council please indicate whether there is a definitive agreement between Member States and the Commission on precisely which aspects of intellectual property are commercial and which are not? If so, will it agree to publish it? If not, how and when will this be defined? As a consequence of these new provisions, will Member States which are signatories to the TRIPs Agreement continue to participate directly and individually in the current and future negotiations on intellectual property issues at WTO level, and will national consent be required for the conclusion of any such agreements?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

1. The questions put by the Honourable Member concern the interpretation of the provisions of Article 133 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as approved at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference and as they will apply once the Treaty of Nice has been ratified by the 15 Member States and has come into force. It is not for the Council to state a position on that interpretation.

2. The European Parliament would be consulted if the Council were to receive a proposal from the Commission based on the current Article 133(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The Council has received no such proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0783/01

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(7 March 2001)

Subject: Moving to international exhaustion for trade marks

As the Commission is aware, the European Parliament has expressed its support for continuing work on exhaustion of trade marks. Many Member States have also called on the Commission to carry out further work on this issue in the belief that the existing regime of Community exhaustion allows companies to charge higher prices to Europeans than they do elsewhere. Does the Commission share the view that the introduction of international exhaustion could be to the benefit of the consumer by leading to lower prices, for example, in such key consumer sectors as clothing, footwear and sports goods, that it would be consistent with the increasing globalisation of trade and the growing use of e-commerce and will the Commission therefore reconsider its decision not to make proposals for changing the trade mark regime?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2001)

First of all the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that this issue is currently subject to an exchange of views with the Parliament. The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission decided on 24 May 2000(1), that it should not, at least for the time being, propose a change in the exhaustion regime. The Commission considered in particular that the current Community exhaustion regime strikes a proper balance between the interests of consumers and trade mark holders. Moreover, it was considered unlikely that prices for consumers would significantly decrease with the introduction of international exhaustion of trade mark rights.

Before reaching this conclusion the Commission commissioned a study of the economic effects of a possible change of exhaustion regime by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) institute in London. According to this study prices under international exhaustion would probably not be very different from those that currently apply.

The Commission approach was supported by the Economic and Social Committee which, on 24 January 2001, adopted unanimously an opinion in favour of the Commission's decision.

(1) PR BIO/00/110.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Answers to questions about the advance issue of euro coins and notes

Why does the Commission deliberately refuse to answer written questions tabled to it by an MEP?

In its answer to Written Question E-3898/00(1), the Commission rambles on and on about the need to keep as short as possible the period in 2002 when banknotes and coins denominated in euros and in national currencies are in circulation side-by-side, on the grounds that the advance issue of euro banknotes might actually result in that period being prolonged.

First of all, it is difficult to see the danger that would arise if a banknote denominated in euros were to appear before the official date of 1 January 2002. More to the point, the real question remains unanswered: since automatic teller machines will not be able to dispense banknotes with a face value of 5 and 10, retailers will find themselves receiving payment in larger denominations and may well be unable to give change in 5 or 10 banknotes. That will inevitably prolong the period during which euros and national currencies are in circulation side-by-side.

That being the case, does not the Commission think that it would be wise to provide for the advance issue to the public of 5 and 10 banknotes like the advance issue of euro coins in the week before the official introduction of the euro? Would the earth be split in twain if a few banknotes were actually used before the official date for the introduction of euro notes and coins?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

In connection with the introduction of euro banknotes and coins as the final step in the changeover towards the single currency, it is very important to avoid any confusion for the citizens and to reduce the inconveniences for the retail sector due to operations in two currencies. Therefore, euro area Member States came to the conclusion that a reduction of the period of dual circulation of banknotes and coins in 2002 to the broadest extent possible is crucial.

The reduction of the dual circulation period as well as the intended effects could be called in to question by banknote frontloading to the public. Moreover, in case of banknote frontloading to the public the risk of an early circulation of these notes could not be excluded.

This is why the Ministers of Finance and the Commission have concurred with the European Central Bank's position not to frontload banknotes to the public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Infringement of Community law on cars belonging to individuals who move to Greece and to those temporarily resident in Greece

By charging an excessive registration duty, Greece is infringing the Community directive concerning the use of cars by EU citizens who transfer their residence to another country. It is also infringing the Community directive on the use of cars by EU citizens who are temporarily resident in Greece by not complying, inter alia, with the principle of the proportionality of sanctions, since it imposes excessive fines on temporary residents who own cars for private use. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that Greece complies with the requirements of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion regarding the problems facing European citizens taking vehicles from other Member States with them when moving to Greece. The collection by the Greek administration of charges significantly exceeding the approximate cost of the services rendered for the registration of the vehicles in question is incompatible with Community law, and more specifically with Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals(1). The Commission has therefore initiated an infringement procedure against Greece under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission also shares the Honourable Member's opinion regarding the temporary use in Greece of vehicles registered in other Member States. In response to petitions to Parliament and complaints from European citizens about a series of Greek administrative measures restricting the freedom to use vehicles registered in other Member States, the Commission has sent Greece a reasoned opinion (the second formal stage in the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty). That reasoned opinion also highlights the disproportionate nature of the penalties applied.

The Commission will be pursuing both procedures in accordance with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1489/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Recruitment of OHIM staff

Given reports that:

- the OHIM agency (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market), which is responsible for trademarks, designs and models and is based in Alicante, does not use competitions to recruit new staff;

- when new vacancy notices are published, candidates who submit applications that fulfil the stated requirements are not invited to an interview;

- in the last vacancy notice for category A staff (reference 00/24/A/CHR, closing date for submitting applications was 15 October 2000), no document other than a curriculum vitae was requested;

- in April 2001 an applicant was rejected without receiving any explanation;

How does the Commission propose to ensure the adoption of a procedure which would lend transparency to staff selection criteria and provide appropriate justification for the process of exclusion?

Does the Commission intend to publish the original criteria for recruitment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) applies the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (CEOS). However, the OHIM enjoys a large degree of administrative autonomy including in its recruitment policy.

According to the instrument establishing the agency - the Community Trade Mark Regulation - the Commission's role is limited to checking the legality of the decisions of the President and the Budget Committee, for which no appeal is provided. Issues concerning recruitment of staff are subject to appeal to the court of First Instance. The Commission does not hold voting rights in the Administrative Board of the OHIM.

Without further detailed information the Commission is not in a position to comment on the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the OHIM has informed the Commission that, on the particular occasion referred to in the question, the Office erroneously sent out letters of rejection to unsuccessful candidates without including the usual justification for rejection which was that other, more suitable, candidates had been selected from among the applications received.

In the past, the OHIM has chosen to use internal competitions for recruitment of officials. The Commission understands, however, that procedures for external competitions are currently under consideration.

Additional information on the selection procedures of the OHIM is best obtained directly from the Agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/01

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: Supplying lights as standard on new cycles

Will the Commission consider bringing forward legislation to make the fitting of front and rear lights on cycles compulsory at the time of manufacture in order to prevent accidents?

Answer given b Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that no specific Community legislation covering the type approval of bicycles has yet been introduced. Nor are there any plans to introduce specific legislation at Community level.

The design and construction standard and the fitting of lighting and ensuing use requirement of such lighting fall within the legislative competence of the Member States.

However, the revised Directive on General Product Safety(1) provides for the use of voluntary standards as a means for ensuring effective and consistent application of the safety requirement. The Commission will examine, during the period for transposition of the revised directive, whether the issue of fitting lighting on new cycles could be dealt with by a standardisation mandate.

(1) Will be adopted in September 2001.