ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/01

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Foie gras force feedings of ducks

In its 1999 recommendations concerning domestic geese and ducks, the Council of Europe's Standing Committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes recommended that until new scientific evidence on alternative methods and their welfare aspects is available, the production of foie gras should be carried out only where it is current practice.

Does the Commission know if foie gras is being produced in any places where it was not current practice at the time of the Council of Europe's 1999 recommendation?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2284/01, E-2285/01 and E-2286/01given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The recommendations adopted by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes are addressed to the Parties of the Convention.

The definition of current practice to limit the production of foie gras to certain areas in Europe has been agreed by the Parties to the Convention. They are entrusted with enforcing the requirements of these recommendations as adopted, such as the ones mentioned by the Honourable Member.

All Member States have implemented Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes(1) into their national legislation. However, it should be mentioned that a ban on force-feeding is neither foreseen by Directive 98/58/EC nor by the recommendations mentioned above.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: The use of of swap-mechanisms by the last Italian government to camouflage the true size of Italy's budgetary deficit

Is the Commission aware of attempts in 1997 by the previous Italian government to use interest swap transactions (as detailed in an International Securities Market Association (ISMA) report without naming the country) in order to camouflage the true size of Italy's budget deficit prior to Italy's entry to the Single Currency? If so, does the Commission regard this as bona fide or as contrary to Italy's obligations in this area?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

The Commission looked into swap transactions carried out by Member States. These transactions involved management of debt and it was decided that debt had to be valued after swap transactions. For measurement of the impact of swap transactions on the deficit in 1997, the European System of National and Regional Accounts in the Community (ESA) 79 was the manual of reference. However, the ESA 79 dealt only with swap on foreign exchange and not with swaps on interest which could have a potential effect on the deficit. In the absence of a clear regulation of the ESA 79 on interest rate swap, Eurostat would have treated such transactions by using the ESA 95 as a reference manual. ESA 95, at that date, treated interest rate swaps as transactions which would have had an effect (positive or negative) on the deficit.

This principle has been recently reaffirmed in a special Regulation concerning the treatment of swaps in the framework of the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), Regulation (EC) No 2558/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 as regards the reclassification of settlements under swaps arrangements and under forward rate agreements(1).

If the Member State in question has used the swap facilities for reducing its deficit, this would not be objectable from a statistical point of view because of the treatment foreseen by ESA 79 and ESA 95.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Commission documents related to the security service affair

Article 197 of the EC Treaty constitutes the legal basis on which the European Parliament and its Members exercise control over the Commission. This includes the provision where necessary of confidential information by the Commission.

Will the Commission provide me with copies of the following documents:

1. The UCLAF report of 12 March 1998 for the Secretary-General of the Commission on its investigation into the IMS/Group 4 Securitas contract (including the annexes) and Mr Trojan's reply of 3 April 1998?

2. The note from Mr Daniel van der Spree, Head of Division, of 23 April 1998 to the Financial Controller at the Commission (the UCLAF/DGXX investigation into the guarding contract awarded to IMS/Group 4 Securitas) including all annexes, and Mrs Ventura's reply?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The documents requested relate to a case which is still under investigation by the Belgian legal authorities. The Commission feels that it is important not to jeopardise investigations in progress and that no information concerning this case can be provided at this stage, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)(1), and with the rules on transparency.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3143/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel

The Italian and French Transport Ministers have set 15 December 2001 as the date for the reopening of the Mont Blanc tunnel following repairs and announced at the same time that it would reopen for heavy vehicles several weeks later, with traffic running one way and alternating direction between the Mont Blanc and Fréjus tunnels as if they formed one, twin-tubed tunnel, as was reported. This decision has sparked off widespread criticism in the region, albeit for very different reasons. The two tunnels are on routes, both of which, at the request of Italy and France, form part of the trans-European transport network and are included in the White Paper on Transport. Although this document came out very recently, it is still based on the assumption that traffic will run both ways in the two Alpine tunnels.

Given the above, how does the Council view the recent Italian-French decision in relation to Community law? Does it not consider it more appropriate to agree to the proposal which has the support of a majority of the population in the Valle d'Aosta to take the necessary measures to ensure stringent restrictions in the volume of TIR traffic?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

1. Bearing in mind the series of tragic accidents in tunnels in the last few years, of which the recent accident in the Gotthard Tunnel is yet another instance, the Council is fully aware of the importance of safety in road and rail tunnels. Indeed, this is one of the priorities of the common transport policy.

In its transport configuration on 17 June 1999 the Council responded to the explicit request from the Cologne European Council meeting on 3 and 4 June 1999 by asking the Commission to submit legislative proposals for promoting safety in tunnels. As can be seen from the White Paper entitled European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, the Commission is planning to submit a legislative proposal in the near future for ensuring a high level of safety in road and rail tunnels. The proposal should cover all aspects of tunnel safety, and the Council intends to deal with it promptly, taking due account of the wishes expressed by the European Parliament in its resolution of 15 November 2001 on the Gotthard Tunnel disaster.

2. Referring specifically to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that the decision on reopening the Mont Blanc tunnel as with any decision on regulating heavy vehicle traffic along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Member is more a matter for the national authorities, and reflects a desire to ensure that, for the time being, people and goods can move freely under conditions of safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2621/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 27/28 June 2001

Will the Council state whether any votes were taken in the Transport and Telecommunications Council on 27/28 June 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2625/01 and E-2627/01

(12 February 2002)

As a preliminary remark, the Council should like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the replies given to his questions E-3938/00 and E-3939/00, in which it is stated that the General Secretariat of the Council draws up monthly summaries of Council acts which contain lists of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. As from January 2001 they also include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). These monthly summaries can be obtained directly from the Council's website (http://ue. eu. int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts). Furthermore, the results of the votes on legislative acts are published in the press releases which are issued after the Council meetings.

As for the Honourable Member's specific questions concerning the votes taken in several Council meetings held in June and July 2001, the following answers can be given:

- 2362nd Council meeting of 25/26 June 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2364th Council meeting of 27/28 June 2001:

- Adoption of the Council Regulation supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, with three votes against (DK, FIN, S) and one abstention (A).

- Adoption of a Common Position on the directive amending for the 20th time the Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, with three votes against (B, DK, NL).

- 2365th Council meeting of 10 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2367th Council meeting of 16 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2368th Council meeting of 20 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 September 2001)

Subject: Attitude of the governments to the cloning of human beings

Parliament has declared its opposition to the cloning of human beings by stem cell manipulation. According to press reports, nationals of Member States are preparing to clone a human being by the procedure already used to clone, among other species, mice and cows. Do the governments of the Member States have the means and the will to stop the cloning of human beings on EU territory?

Reply

(17 December 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that giving opinions on the positions of Member States' governments or on the means available to national public authorities are not matters that fall within its competence.

The Council would however stress that Article 6 of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions stipulates that the granting of patents on processes for cloning human beings is prohibited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2376/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 August 2001)

Subject: Frontier workers not accepted in Dutch private medical insurance schemes

1. Is the Commission aware of the problems faced by those people who work in the Netherlands but live in other Members States who come above the income ceiling for compulsory medical insurance but are not accepted in private Dutch medical insurance schemes apart from schemes operated by one insurer who asks for much higher premiums?

2. How can this non-acceptance or the payment of higher premiums be reconciled with the principle of Regulation 1612/68(1), which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality?

(1) OJ: English special edition, Series-I 68(II) P. 475.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission's attention to the problem of admission to private medical insurance schemes as experienced by frontier workers working in the Netherlands but living in another Member State. It seems that Dutch legislation in this area contains a residence requirement which could run counter to Community law and in particular to Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(1). In order to be able to examine all legal aspects of the question raised, the Commission has contacted the Dutch authorities to obtain further details on the Dutch legislation in question and on the position of the Netherlands Government on this issue.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of its inquiries.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3491/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: CE standard marks and stun weapons

Stun weapons are frequently used around the world as part of inhuman and degrading torture practices which amount to serious human rights violations. According to an Amnesty International report, since 1990 electro-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons, detention centres and police stations in at least 76 countries in every region of the world.

There have been reports that certain stun weapons manufacturers are advertising that their products have been awarded the European CE standard mark. When questioned regarding these markings, the European Commission replied that the Commission has no information about the validity of Teh Huang's [the company concerned in this case] CE marking, or about the possible sale of Teh Huangs products on the territory of the European Union (e-mail to Amnesty International, Ireland, dated 26 February 2001).

In relation to this, I am concerned that EU Member States are effectively allowing stun weapon manufacturers to use the European Commission CE safety markings on their stun batons as a quality selling point.

Therefore:

- Please could the Commission clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded?

- How many stun weapon manufacturers are using the CE markings on their products?

- Is there a possibility that certain stun weapons manufacturers are using CE markings without authorisation and, if so, what could the Commission do about it?

- What action could the Commission take to prevent stun weapon manufacturers using CE markings to promote the sales of their products?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-2783/01 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2483/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Trade in conflict diamonds

International ability to curb the trade in conflict diamonds is closely linked to the success of the Kimberley Process. At present this process is moving forward slowly, partly because the European Union does not have a common position. How soon does the Council intend to give the Commission a mandate for the Kimberley Process negotiations?

Furthermore, border checks on the import of diamonds, preventing conflict diamonds being imported into the EU, require specialist knowledge on the part of the customs services. Does the Council consider that it would be useful to limit the points through which diamonds can be imported to one per Member State so as to concentrate the expertise in a restricted number of places?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The Council follows with great interest the work carried out in the framework of the Kimberley process. It will consider any draft recommendation for a mandate submitted by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Independence of the Western Sahara

Self-determination, by means of a referendum of Saharan citizens, is the only just and decent solution to the state of marginalisation in which the people of the Western Sahara have been living for 25 years, ever since the Moroccan regime, counting on European and

USA pacifity, illegally occupied the territory by force, once Moroccan pressure on the Spanish Government during the critical period immediately preceding Franco's death had led to the territory's being shamefully abandoned by Spain. Now, James Baker, the American UN mediator, embracing the Moroccan position, is proposing autonomy as a solution an autonomy similar to the fictitious autonomy which certain regions within the authoritarian Moroccan state may enjoy in the future. The government of the Saharan Republic will not, of course, accept this fake solution. In view of this, and the fact that the Member States' influence in the area could be decisive, what is the European Union's current position on Western Saharan self-determination?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply given by the Council to question E-2239/01 on the Western Sahara.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Imports of contaminated meat into Greece

According to Document No K 3768 of the Veterinary Service of the Prefecture of Piraeus, an inspection on 30 May 2001 found that 17,2 tonnes of beef from Germany and 12,5 tonnes of beef from France were contaminated with listeria, and this meat was seized on 14 June 2001.

More recently, a similar incident occurred with 3,5 tonnes of beef from Germany, as Document No K 4377 of the Veterinary Service of the Prefecture of Piraeus shows, and this beef was seized on 11 July 2001. In both cases the meat was accompanied by all the necessary certification.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents? Is it satisfied with the controls on imports and exports of animal products between the Member States of the European Union, particularly in the case of France and Germany?

What does the Commission intend to do to prevent any recurrence of such incidents in future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

The Commission's rapid alert network was not informed of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. Article 4 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market(1) specifies that products obtained in accordance with the relevant veterinary directives should be checked in the same way, whether they are intended for intra-Community trade or for the national market.

With the exception of Council Directive 92/46/EEC laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products(2), no other veterinary directive lays down microbiological criteria relating to Listeria monocytogenes. Where limits for this micro-organism are laid down for foodstuffs other than milk and milk-based products, this is based on national regulations. In order to conform with the Treaty, such regulations must be based on sound scientific opinion and should not constitute an obstacle to trade. The monitoring procedures required to set these limits are also the responsibility of the Member States in question.

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health, in its opinion of 23 September 1999, mentions that, according to the data available on the human epidemiology of food-borne listeriosis, the presence of fewer than 100 Listeria monocytogenes per gram at the consumption stage may be considered as a low risk to all consumer populations.

The Commission has set up a working party of experts from Member States in order to undertake a broad study on the harmonisation of microbiological criteria relevant to each food category. This working party's findings will be incorporated into a draft Community Regulation, as proposed by Article 6 of the Proposal for a Regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs(3), adopted by the Commission on 14 July 2000 and forwarded to the Council and the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992.

(3) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2623/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Council meeting of 10 July 2001

Will the Council state whether any votes were taken in the Ecofin Council on 10 July 2001 and if so, how many and on what matters?

Will it further record the votes of all those who voted on each issue during the meeting?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2625/01 and E-2627/01

(12 February 2002)

As a preliminary remark, the Council should like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the replies given to his questions E-3938/00 and E-3939/00, in which it is stated that the General Secretariat of the Council draws up monthly summaries of Council acts which contain lists of legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. As from January 2001 they also include references to the voting procedure followed for the adoption of the acts by the Council (unanimity, qualified or simple majority). These monthly summaries can be obtained directly from the Council's website (http://ue. eu. int, under Transparency and Summary of Council acts). Furthermore, the results of the votes on legislative acts are published in the press releases which are issued after the Council meetings.

As for the Honourable Member's specific questions concerning the votes taken in several Council meetings held in June and July 2001, the following answers can be given:

- 2362nd Council meeting of 25/26 June 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2364th Council meeting of 27/28 June 2001:

- Adoption of the Council Regulation supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, with three votes against (DK, FIN, S) and one abstention (A).

- Adoption of a Common Position on the directive amending for the 20th time the Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, with three votes against (B, DK, NL).

- 2365th Council meeting of 10 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2367th Council meeting of 16 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.

- 2368th Council meeting of 20 July 2001:

- No votes were taken.