ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Fiorentina-Grasshopper football match on 3 November 1998

During the Fiorentina-Grasshopper football match for the second round of the UEFA Cup a device was thrown on to the field. It exploded, injuring one of the players and leading to suspension of the game.

The game was being played in the Salerno stadium.

Inquiries by the competent authorities, corroborated by harsh statements by the Mayor of Salerno, suggest that the Fiorentina football club behaved correctly but that some fringe groups of local fans, who are being investigated, did not.

During the Fiorentina-Salerno match for the Serie A championship the two groups of fans clashed, and it is not therefore unreasonable to think that the act was premeditated to harm Fiorentina.

The Mayor of Salerno has said that the maintenance of public order around the football stadium by the Salerno authorities was inadequate.

From the data available to the competent authorities it cannot be deduced that Fiorentina was in any way responsible for the incident.

UEFA is to take a decision on the subject on 12 November.

Does the Commission not consider it advisable to intervene urgently vis-à-vis UEFA in order to ensure that the UEFA Cup is properly organised and to prevent any unfair penalisation of Fiorentina when responsibility can in no way be attributed to it?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The question raised by the Honourable Member relates to events which occurred at a Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Cup football match. It is not for the Commission to get involved in a disciplinary matter which is the responsibility of a sporting organisation.

The Commission has often stated that sporting organisations must be free to lay down their own disciplinary rules, which are what gives each sport its particular identity.

No Community intervention would be justified unless Community law was infringed, which does not seem to be the point of the question here.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/98

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Report of the European Ombudsman on the Itoiz dam (Spain)

In his report of 20 November 1998 the European Ombudsman criticised the decision to take no further action on complaint P/92/4758 concerning the Itoiz dam and concluded his remarks by noting that the fact that the Commission could give no proper justification for its decision (to consider the matter closed) constituted a case of maladministration.

The Itoiz dam is damaging two Special Bird Conservation Areas (ZEPA) and three nature reserves.

1. Does the Commission know about the above-mentioned report by the Ombudsman?

2. What steps will it take to remedy this case of maladministration?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1999)

The Commission is aware of the Ombudsman's decision in this matter.

The Ombudsman's critical remarks solely concern the extent to which the Commission had given adequate reasons for not accepting a legal argument put forward by the complainants (which essentially related to whether Spain could rely on a development consent process set out in Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna as against an earlier process set out in Directive 79/409/EEC(2) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds).

However, the Commission considers that the information it provided was sufficient to address this legal argument, since it could be logically deduced from this information why the legal argument was not accepted. In particular, the Commission made quite clear the date from which it considered Directive 92/43/EEC to be applicable, and the facts made it clear that the Itoiz project would be carried out after that date. In any case, the Ombudsman did not question the correctness of the Commission's legal stance.

Given this and given the fact that the Itoiz project has since been constructed, the Commission does not see any purpose in prolonging commentary on a Commission decision dating from 1994. The original complainant in this case has been fully informed of Commission's views on this issue.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3926/98

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Publicity campaign for Greek Government education policy using European Union funds

The operational programme "Education and Initial Vocational Training" (Epeaek) forming part of the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece - the take-up of appropriations for which is particularly low - also jointly funds the so-called "reform" of secondary education, which was previously publicised using Epeaek resources. The "reform", however, has given rise to a storm of protest from teacher and parent organisations as well as from students. The Ministry of Education has responded by launching a new publicity campaign, taking out expensive full-page advertisements in the daily press and advertising slots on radio. Furthermore, it is obvious that the new publicity campaign is not simply trying to inform public opinion but to stem the swelling tide of protest from political parties and the educational community as a whole. Moreover, the press advertisements make no reference to the Community Support Framework, except for a tiny logo as a pretext for covering the expense from Community funds, and nor do the radio slots, whereas both are financed from the Community Support Framework for education.

In the light of this situation, will the Commission say:

1. whether it has been informed about the Ministry of Education's new publicity campaign and, if so, to what extent it is satisfied with the conditions under which it is being conducted and the terms on which the CSF is being presented,

2. what the level of expenditure is for the first and the second Ministry of Education publicity campaign and under which Epeaek subprogramme they are being jointly funded, and

3. what measures it will take to put an end to the financing of government propaganda from Community funds?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the particular publicity campaign to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission would like to point out that the national authorities are responsible for the implementation of the actions co-funded by the structural funds, including those for information and publicity.

The Commission, therefore, has no information on the cost of this publicity campaign. However, the overall budget, agreed by the programme's monitoring committee for information and publicity actions on the Epeaek programme, up to the end of the programming period, amounts to 500 million drachma (about [fmxeuro]1,5 million. The operation is funded through measure 1 of the sub-programme 4 (technical assistance) of the programme "Education and initial training".

The Commission and the Greek Ministry of national economy have recently set up a joint steering committee with the aim of co-ordinating and monitoring the information and publicity activities for the Greek Community support framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) , Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) and Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Spanish hydrological plan

The Spanish press reports that the government has submitted a hydrological mini-plan worth 216 000 million pesetas (approximately 260 000 million escudos) to parliament for urgent approval so as to allow community co-funding be sought.

Amongst the construction projects involved in this mini-plan is the extension of the channel diverting water between the rivers Tagus and Segura, construction of which has not yet begun.

The Tagus is an international river, and the carrying out of work affecting this water course - and specifically, diverting it - should be subject to prior discussion and agreement with the other countries concerned, name Portugal. Furthermore, works of this kind require in-depth environmental impact assessment, and according to the Spanish place no such studies have been carried out.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has the Spanish government already submitted its request for co-funding for the work on extendedly channel between the Tagus and Segura?

2. Is it going to accept this request for funding, without the project's having passed an environmental impact assessment and without the Portuguese government's having accepted that this channel should be built?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

To date, the Commission has not received a request from the Spanish authorities for part-financing in connection with these works. If they are to be part-financed by the Community in due course, the Commission will be ensuring that the rules on eligibility and combination of funding are fully complied with, as well as all the legal provisions relating to the environment or arising from international obligations such as under the joint management of cross-border river basins.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2962/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: COM in sub-tropical fruit

In some EU countries, particularly in regions with mild climates, sub-tropical fruits such as pineapples, papayas and mangos are being cultivated and are emerging as possible alternatives to the traditional crops in those areas, given their growing popularity with EU consumers and the likelihood of their increased consumption in the future.

Does the Commission have figures for the number of hectares on which each of these crops is grown in the European Union? If so, what are they?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of establishing a common organisation of the market specifically laying down arrangements for the production and marketing of "tropical fruits" in the Community, taking into account the factors of international competition with these crops and the possible expansion of the sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables(1) lists the products covered by the market organisation. These include the vast majority of tropical fruits: pineapples, papayas, and mangoes, as well as plantains, avocados, guavas, tamarinds, cashew apples, jackfruit, lychees, sapodillo plums, passion fruit, carambolas and pitahaya (these last being grouped under the heading "other fresh fruits").

This means that producer organisations may already apply any specific regulatory measure to tropical fruits. Operational funds may be used for this purpose, whether for intervention (subject to the limits laid down by Regulation (EC) 2200/96) or for measures under operational programmes to improve quality, develop marketing or promote these products.

The Commission therefore considers that the existing instruments provide an answer to the problems of regulating the production and marketing of tropical fruits.

Furthermore, Regulation (EC) 2200/96 provides for the introduction of specific measures to increase competitiveness and promote certain products of great local importance and facing strong international competition where the normal instruments of the market organisation are inadequate or unsuitable.

The Commission has no data other than those regularly published by the statistical offices of the various Member States and by Eurostat. There is little information on recent changes in the areas planted to tropical fruits and the quantities harvested. Apart from avocados and bananas, the tropical fruit most produced in the Community is pineapples, which amount to almost 40 000 tonnes (the equivalent of 1 300 hectares) in the French overseas departments (of which 75 % is accounted for by Martinique) and about 2 000 tonnes in Portugal. The production of mangoes (mainly in Réunion: 3 500 tonnes on 200 hectares) and papayas is still only marginal.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4015/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Licensing suspension for Tasmar (Tolcapone)

The Commission recently initiated a procedure whereby Member States are requested to suspend the licensing of Tasmar as of 17 November.

This has raised concerns among sufferers of Parkinson's Disease in the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission please provide a full explanation for this decision and details of any contact it has had with the US Food and Drugs Administration on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The procedure concerning the suspension of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product tolcapone (TASMAR) was finalised by Commission Decision on the 11 December 1998, in accordance with the opinion of the standing committee in which the Member States are represented.

The decision was taken following the scientific evaluation made by the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products which recommended the suspension of the marketing authorisation.

The scientific evaluation, indicates that it was impossible to guarantee the safe use of this medicinal product for the following reasons:

- serious hepatic reactions occur unpredictably and liver monitoring does not seem to be able to predict the development of severe, sometimes fatal, hepatic disease;

- taking into consideration this hepatotoxicity, as well as the possible occurrence of rhabdomyolysis and neuroleptic malignant-like syndrome, the overall benefit to risk balance of tolcapone was considered to be unfavourable in the authorised indication and it was not felt possible to restrict the indications sufficiently to permit safe use.

The procedure and the decision were made on the basis of the information provided to the European competent authority. Similar concerns had been identified by the United States Food and drugs administration (FDA), and the decision of the Commission has been communicated to the FDA.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3735/98

by Aline Pailler (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: International convention on the rights of migrant workers

In its reply to Written Question E-2283/96(1) by the same author as this question, the Commission stated that no Member State had ratified the United Nations convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families, and that it intended to take steps to encourage the Member States to ratify the convention, as called for by the European Parliament.

Can the Commission state what steps it has taken to that end? What results have been achieved from the Member States? What does it consider to be the obstacles which are preventing the Member States ratifying the convention?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

The International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and the members of their families has not yet entered into force, as it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries. As far as the Commission is aware, no Member States have ratified it as yet. It would appear that one of the major obstacles to ratification by the Member States lies in the fact that the Convention recognises rights in respect of all migrant workers, regardless of whether they are in a regular or irregular situation in the country of establishment.

Nevertheless, within the framework of its powers, the Commission has taken positive action with a view to strengthening protection for the rights of migrant workers and the members of their families. Regarding Community migrant workers, it has presented a proposal(2) aimed at improving the conditions under which they can exercise freedom of movement, including consolidation of the right of migrant workers and the members of their families to full and effective integration in the host Member State.

Secondly, concerning migrant workers who are nationals of third countries, the Commission has proposed an extension of the rules on the coordination of social security (Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community) to nationals of third countries who are legally established in a Member State(3).

Finally, the Commission has proposed a Council Act(4) establishing a Convention on rules for the admission of third-country nationals to the Member States, which lays down the conditions of residence for third-country nationals in the territory of the Member States, including rules on family reunification and access to employment.

(1) OJ C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 103.

(2) OJ C 344, 12.11.1998.

(3) OJ C 6, 10.1.1998.

(4) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4035/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Dolphins kept in dolphinariums

Dolphins are kept and put on show in numerous recreational and leisure parks, and also in zoos.

How does the Commission guarantee that these animals are kept in natural conditions?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The import of dolphins is regulated in Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1). As all cetacean species are listed in Annex A to the Regulation, dolphins cannot be imported for primarily commercial purposes. In addition, a Member State's scientific authority must be satisfied that the intended accommodation is equipped to conserve and care for the animal properly. The authorised location will be prescribed in the import permit and any movement from that location requires prior authorisation.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3760/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Fisheries agreement between the EU and Cape Verde

The fisheries agreement between the EU and Cape Verde runs from 6 September 1997 to 5 September 2000. The fishing possibilities provided for under this agreement include the allocation to Portugal of eight licences for surface longliners and three licences for bottom longliners with an individual tonnage of less than 210 GRT.

In this context, and bearing in mind that more than a year has now passed since the present agreement was renewed (6 September 1997), can the Commission provide the following information:

1. How many licences have actually been issued to Portuguese surface longliners? Who are the licence-holders? What quantity of fish (in tonnes) was landed by each of the Portuguese surface longliners licensed in the first year of the agreement?

2. How many licences have actually been issued to Portuguese bottom longliners? Who are the licence-holders? What quantity of fish (in tonnes) was landed by each of the Portuguese bottom longliners licensed in the first year of the agreement?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

During the first year covered by the agreement between the Community and Cape Verde (6 September 1997 to 5 September 1998), six licences were applied for and were issued to the surface longliners Atrevido, Infante Dom Henrique, Mar Portugues, Miguel Santos, Paula Filipa and Rapazinho. No licences were applied for in respect of bottom longliners. The only vessel to notify a catch was Atrevido, which reported landing 5 880 kilograms in March 1998.

Since surface longliners target highly migratory species, they generally hold licences under several fisheries agreements so that they can continue to fish without interruption from one zone to another and on the high seas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/99

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Admission of holders of the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification to the European civil service

- In his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97(1), Commissioner Liikanen stated that the Commission admits holders of German diplomas issued after the minimum compulsory period of eight semesters to category A/LA posts in the European civil service.

- In its defence against the action for annulment brought by Mr Vicente Alonso Morales (T-299/97, paragraph 33), the Commission declared that holders of the German "Fachhochschuldiplom" issued after eight semesters of study are admitted to category A/LA posts.

- The notice of open competition COM/A/1047(2) stipulates that periods of training count as professional experience.

Bearing in mind the above-mentioned facts, why does the Commission admit holders of the German "Fachhochschuldiplom" to category A/LA posts in the European civil service, given that the said qualification consists of a maximum of six semesters of study, together with a placement with an undertaking for one or two semesters as professional experience?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2740/98 by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi(3).

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

(2) OJ C 145A, 13.5.1997.

(3) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 141.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/99

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

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Slate industry and generalised system of preferences

According to the answer given by Sir Leon Brittan, on behalf of the Commission, to my previous Written Questions E-4009/97 and E-4011/97(1), finished slate was classified as a non-sensitive product under the GSP scheme for developing countries, which means that slate imports into the EU are exempt from customs duty. Sir Leon's answer also indicates that the Commission does not plan to review the classification of these products before the current GSP scheme expires on 31 December 1998.

Now that the scheme has expired, can the Commission say whether it has started to review the GSP scheme for developing countries or, if it has not done so, say when that review will take place?

Specifically, can the Commission say whether the classification of slate as a non-sensitive product has been reviewed and can it provide information on the outcome of and reasoning behind that review? If no review has taken place, can it say when it will carry out such a review and whether it intends to change the current classification of this product?

Can the Commission say what specific criteria are generally followed in classifying a product as non-sensitive under the GSP scheme?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

On 21 December 1998 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001(2), the second such scheme within the ten-year framework laid down for the period 1995-2004. Products remain classified by sensitivity in the same four categories as under the previous regulation.

As was pointed out in the answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-1580/98(3), for the purposes of the GSP, the classification of products according to their degree of sensitivity broadly reflects their sensitivity on the Community market as established at the time of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations. This classification underpins the ten-year guidelines and will not be substantially amended during their currency, since one purpose of those guidelines was precisely to ensure that the GSP schemes operated with some consistency over the ten-year period.

Obviously, limited adjustments can be made when each successive scheme is adopted, but the Commission saw no need to propose adjustments for the second scheme and no Member State asked for any change when the scheme was adopted by the Council.

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.

(2) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(3) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 145.