ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: Food allergies affecting babies and toddlers

Babies and toddlers are being affected by food allergies to an ever-increasing extent. Research workers have found that 5 % of all babies are affected and that the number of cases has increased by 10 % over the last five years. Food allergies result in swelling of the face or of the tongue and, in the most serious instances, in asphyxiation. Research has shown that five food products are responsible for 82 % of the allergies: eggs, peanuts and peanut butter, milk, mustard or mayonnaise, and raw fish. That is not insignificant, in so far as eggs are used in all food products. 90 % of the allergies disappear by the time the child is three years old, although that frequently does not apply to peanuts. New dietary habits have led to peanuts being used to an ever-increasing extent in food products. Research workers make the point that specifically the peanut allergy can develop into a lifelong allergy.

Is the Commission aware of the increase in the number of food allergies affecting babies and toddlers?

If so, what does the Commission consider to be behind that increase? If so, what measures will the Commission take?

Should not consumers be better informed about the possible undesirable effects of baby foods?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Cases of food allergy and intolerance have indeed increased steadily in recent years; according to the Commission's information, 8 % of children and 3 % of adults are affected.

It would appear that many different factors contribute, such as a wider range of foods, urban pollution or, on quite a different level, factors relating to the immune system. As yet, however, not enough is known about the various causes and their effects.

Once food allergies or intolerances have been identified, it is essential to eliminate the food or foods in question from the diet. Food ingredients must therefore be known, so that it can be seen that the allergen is present.

In accordance with one of its commitments in the White Paper on food safety(1), the Commission has therefore placed before Parliament and the Council a proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs(2), to ensure that labelling takes account of the allergies and intolerances problem.

This proposal is currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council. When it is put into practice, the ingredients giving rise to food allergies or intolerances will have to be indicated in the labelling without fail.

This principle will apply to the ingredients mentioned by the honourable member, as well as other ingredients, and will cover all foodstuffs, including of course baby foods.

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1138/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 April 2002)

Subject: The shift in Israeli government policy from peaceful coexistence with an equal Palestinian state to ongoing domination

1. Does the Council agree that since the Sharon government came to power in Israel by evoking ethnic differences, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967 has altered greatly and, instead of the previously agreed development towards an independent Palestinian state, the Israeli government has unilaterally moved in the opposite direction, which is leading to the dismantling of Palestinian self-government, the violent political purging of the Palestinian population, the cutting of contacts with other states, further growth of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories and the destruction of ports, airports, roads and buildings?

2. Does the Council agree that this change does not come particularly or solely from the natural need of the people of Israel for security but rather from the political powers within Israel, which always took the view that these territories should be made a permanent part of the Israeli state and that where necessary the existing Palestinian population should be expelled or encouraged to leave, and are trying to establish irreversible facts in their favour?

3. What is the cost of the destruction resulting from Israeli actions, since the Sharon government took office, to projects for improvements in the Palestinian territories financed or cofinanced by contributions from the EU or individual Member States?

4. In view of the altered situation, is the Council prepared to make it clear that any policy based on the inequality of the two peoples, on maintaining political and economic inferiority of the Palestinians, and on colonisation and annexation can only lead to Israel's isolation from the European Union?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

It is not for the Council to speculate on the motivations of the Israeli Government. But the Council has stated repeatedly that there can be no military solution to the conflict and has called upon the parties to move towards a political resolution of their disputes based on UNSCRs 242 and 338, and the principle of land for peace. It looks forward to the day when two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders, both enjoying close and warm relations with the European Union.

The damages incurred to Palestinian infrastructure financed in whole or part by the EU, including damages incurred during recent IDF action, are in the process of being assessed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2132/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Working Time Directive and volunteers

In its reply to Written Question E-1241/00(1) by Mrs Lynne, the Commission stated that Directive 93/104/EC(2) does not recognise the concept of voluntary work. Indeed, this may indirectly be deduced from the directive itself, Article 7 of which lays down that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers are entitled to at least four weeks' paid leave per annum. It may be concluded from this article that volunteers are not covered by the directive. In the Netherlands, this directive was transposed by the Working Hours Act of 23 November 1995. Section 1(1) of the Act lays down that the definition of employer includes any person who, without being an employer or employee as referred to in the first paragraph, causes another person to perform work under his authority. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment interprets this provision so restrictively that in many cases volunteers are covered by it, with the unfortunate result that voluntary work is seriously impeded.

1. Does the definition given in Section 1(1) of the Netherlands Working Hours Act comply with European legislation?

2. Is not voluntary work by definition incompatible with the word authority, as it consists of work carried out without compulsion, of the individual's own free will and without pay, whereas authority implies the potential exercise of power, which cannot apply in relation to a volunteer, who may at any time decide not to continue to perform the work?

3. Is the way in which the Ministry of Social Affairs interprets and applies Section 1(1) of the Netherlands Working Hours Act, particularly with regard to voluntary work, compatible with European law?

4. Are the Netherlands authorities right to invoke European law with reference to the formulation, interpretation and application of this section?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 153.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(1) applies to all workers within the scope of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC(2).

Directive 93/104/EC does not contain a definition of the term worker. The applicable definition is found in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC, which states that any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants must be considered to be a worker.

In so far as volunteers are considered to be workers under national law, they are covered by both these Directives.

However, with regard to directives laying down minimum standards, Community law does not prevent Member States from applying their transposal legislation even to volunteers who are not considered to be workers.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2465/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Trade

Further to the Commission's answer to questions E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02(1), will the Commission update its answer to include figures for 2001?

If these figures are still unavailable, will the Commission state when they are likely to be made available?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 244.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2464/02 and E-2465/02given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Further to its answer to written questions E-0992/02 to E-0994/02 and E-1106/02 by the Honourable Member, the Commission has frequent contacts with the European Central Bank (ECB) on data dissemination and the ECB does not intend to publish the Balance of Payments (BOP) data of the Member States with the extra Euro-zone used to compile the Euro-zone aggregate. Moreover, data on BOP transactions between members of the Euro-zone one are not a primary concern to the ECB. Following the request of the Honourable Member, the Commission has contacted the European Central Bank on the public dissemination of individual Member States data. The ECB confirmed its former position.

Also the Commission does not intend to publish these data, although for different reasons. The Commission agrees with the principle that statistics collected are a public good and should be disseminated. However, the Commission considers not every data collected nationally for the purpose of creating an European aggregate to be of public interest. This is the case for the data used as input for the Euro-zone aggregates of the balance of payments. As Member States produce and publish their own balance of payments data using a methodology (principle of origin) different from the one used for creating the European aggregate (principle of consignment), the public user might be confused by two sets of data whose differences are difficult to interpret.

Nevertheless, in order to satisfy the present demand, the Commission has agreed with some Member States to provide these data. The Honourable Member will find them enclosed. It should be stressed again that these data are used by Eurostat to compile the Community's Balance of Payments. They are different from the national data Member States disseminate to the public. However, they are fully compatible with the aggregate Community's Balance of Payments published by Eurostat.

Finally, the 2001 data with a detailed geographical breakdown are not yet available, and will be available by the end of October 2002. The provisional 2001 data for the Union with partners World, Extra-EU 15, Intra-EU 15, United States, Japan and Canada were published in July 2002 (statistics in focus 34/2002) and in New Cronos, and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/02

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Council

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Association agreement with Algeria

Negotiations are currently in progress on an association agreement between the European Union and Algeria. The agreement contains a clause which states that the basis for the agreement will be respect for human rights and democratic principles. Unfortunately, reports show that there is systematic violation of human rights in Algeria and that the government of the country often fails to investigate such serious crimes. Furthermore, Algeria has refused access to UN human rights experts and special rapporteurs.

If the EU is to sign an association agreement with Algeria, there would be a need for substantial improvements in respect for human rights. In what way will the Council ensure that an assessment of the human rights situation in Algeria and compliance with the article of the association agreement relating to human rights constitute a separate item on the agenda for all meetings, especially those of the Association Council, concerning the agreement?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Council's replies to questions E-0881/02 put by Patricia McKenna, E-1031/02 put by Philip Bushill-Matthews and E-1109/02 put by Christos Zacharakis and Konstantinos Hatzidakis.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2239/02

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Export documents in the local language

Is it true that customs documents (in this instance, European Community export declarations) for the movement of goods inside and outside the European Union must be completed at the relevant customs post in the local language and in no other?

Is it not possible for such documents as well as any other documents relating to the movement of goods to be completed and submitted in English?

If that should not be the case, does the Commission have any plans to introduce a uniform language system or to authorise the use of any of the official languages of the European Union?

Do the Member States have any say in the selection of the language?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Under Article 211 of the Customs Code Implementing Provisions(1), customs declarations (in this case export declarations) must be made out in an official language of the Community accepted by the customs authorities of the Member State in which the formalities are being carried out. It is for the Member States to decide which official languages they accept.

Where necessary, the customs authorities of the Member State of destination may ask the declarant or his representative there for a translation into an official language of that Member State.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2013/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Greek Agriculture Ministry funding

The Ministry of Agriculture of the Hellenic Republic has made available to the relevant recipients (town councils, local authorities and animal welfare organisations) appropriations amounting

to EUR 2 350 000. According to an announcement by the Directorate-General for Veterinary Science, this funding was provided on condition that the above recipients displayed an interest in making appropriate arrangements for dealing with stray dogs by setting up a dogs' home, rounding up strays, medically examining, registering and castrating them and taking all possible measures to promote respect for animals throughout Greece. There are fears, however, that the sum of EUR 2 350 000 may have been used to put down animals, as was already the case at the Noah's Ark home in the town of Chania, Crete, which had to close down in early 2002.

1. Does the Commission know whether these funds come from EU appropriations?

2. If they do, will the Commission say who received the funds and what amount was involved, what the funds were used for and who monitors their use?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

As the Commission has already indicated in its reply to written question E-1658/02 by Mr Bakopoulos(1), the Control of stray dogs is a matter within the sole competence of Member States. No Community funding is available to Member States, their National or Local Authorities or Animal Welfare associations for this purpose.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Timetable for clarifying the definition of waste

In her reply to written question E-0885/02(1), Commissioner Margot Wallström states that the Sixth Environmental Action Programme calls for clarification of the legislative distinction between waste and non-waste. Within the context of the Programme, she says, the Commission will take steps to undertake a review on how best to achieve this task.

The definition of waste ought to be clarified as soon as possible, so that enterprises which put by-products from their processes to good use are no longer disadvantaged by the existing economically undesirable situation. UNICE (the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe) is among those who have noted this problem and taken an initiative with regard to it.

When will the Commission take steps to clarify the definition of waste?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 155.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2170/02 and E-2195/02given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Decision of the Parliament and of the Council laying down the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (EAP), as adopted by Council on 11 June 2002(1), establishes as one of its priority actions concerning the sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste(2).

The definition of waste is set out in Article 1a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(3) as amended and constitutes a fundamental component of Community legislation on waste management. Within the framework of the 6th EAP, the Commission will take steps in the early stages of the Programme to undertake a review on how best to achieve the task of clarifying the distinction. This will be done with a view to considering ways, if proven necessary and appropriate, of building upon the parameters that already exist in both Community legislation and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice relating to the definition.

The decision concerning the imposition of a waste tax is a matter exclusively within the competence of individual Member States. Member States are not required under Community legislation to impose a waste tax. Therefore, it is for individual Member States, as appropriate, and not the Community to address the question of double taxation as posed by the Honourable Member.

(1) 2435th Council Meeting Fisheries Luxembourg, 11 June 2002 (C/02/172).

(2) See Article 8(2)(iv) of the adopted Decision.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Budget and costs of Convention on the Future of Europe

In the light of recently published information relating to high foreseen costs for the Convention on Europe's future, can the Commission confirm what the budget for this Convention will be? Further can the Commission provide details on the breakdown of this budget, in particular: how much of it will be dedicated to translation services, publications, expenses for the chairman and members of the Convention, and salary for the Convention chairman?

From which part of the European Union budget will this money be allocated?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-0139/02, E-0337/02 and E-0419/02given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The Parliament, the Council and the Commission have concluded on 28 February 2002 an inter-institutional agreement organising their contribution to the financing of the Convention on the future of Europe. This agreement is based on estimates for the Convention's budget amounting to EUR 4 million for the first budgetary year, running from March to December 2002.

This amount will be transferred from the general budget of the Union to a specific Fund outside the Community general budget, and will be shared as follows:

- EUR 1 million from section I (Parliament);

- EUR 0,4 million from section II (Council);

- EUR 2,6 million from section III (Commission) Part A.

These amounts represent 0,1 % of the administrative expenditure of each institution, excluding pensions.

An amending budget has been adopted on 28 February 2002 by the budgetary authority, creating the necessary lines and transferring the necessary appropriations to allow the implementation of these contributions.

According to the rules agreed by the three institutions, the Convention's budget should be adopted on the proposal of the Secretary-General of the Convention and with the agreement of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

In principle, the Convention's budget does not include the costs of travels and accomodation of members of the Convention (other than its Praesidium), covered by the Parliament, Member States and candidate countries where the members come from, the salaries of members of the Convention's Secretariat when they are seconded from Union institutions and some infrastructure costs (including interpretation, translation, buildings and personnel) covered by the three institutions hosting the Convention's meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Revision of the White Paper on Transport in 2004

What are the chances that in the Commission's revision of its White Paper on European transport policy scheduled for 2004 the network map will include the province of Teruel, on the route of the Spanish high-speed rail link between Madrid, Cuenca and Valencia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission has announced that in 2004 it intends to propose a revision of Decision 1692/96/EC(1) on Community guidelines for the trans-European transport network. As indicated in the White Paper, this revision will aim to focus Community action on a reduced number of priorities along major routes, integrate the networks of the candidate countries and integrate maritime corridors. Since competence for the trans-European networks is shared with the Member States, the Commission will work in close collaboration with the national administrations in drawing up the revision proposal.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the proposal for an interim revision of the guidelines(2), currently being examined by the Council. This proposal includes the addition to the maps in Annex I to the aforementioned Decision of the planned high-speed Huesca-Zaragoza-Teruel rail link, whose construction will help open up the Province of Teruel. Parliament has already delivered a positive opinion on the proposal.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001.