ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/98 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Permanent EU representation in the ASEAN countries

A delegation from Parliament has formed a comprehensive picture of the financial crisis in Asia following a visit to Malaysia and Indonesia.

Despite all the activities by the EU and its Member States, not least through the initiatives of the European Monetary Institute, and the possible effects of this crisis on Europe, there is a need for a more positive official EU commitment - in the form of tangible action, as well as through the media. It would be particularly useful to establish permanent representations of the European Union, e.g. in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. This wish was repeated in Parliament's debate in plenary in late January.

Does the Commission agree that a greater media presence and additional representation in the ASEAN countries would have a positive effect on EU activities and the EU's capacity to influence events in the region as a whole?

Is the Commission planning any concrete measures to establish delegations in the ASEAN region?

Can the Commission give an indication of a date for this, if a timetable has been drawn up?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-290/98 by Mr Bertens ((See page 72. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0854/98 by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1998)

Subject: Responsibility for fire

The responsibility for fire falls across many directorates-general of the European Commission. In what way does the Commission ensure that these matters are dealt with in a coherent and focused manner?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Civil law in Belgium

Community officials living in Belgium on a short-term basis and for purely work-related reasons are subject, for civil purposes, to different laws from those under which they acquired their marital status and are therefore placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their fellow nationals. In particular, Belgian divorce law, which is more restrictive than that in force in other EU Member States, is applicable to married couples whose members are not of Belgian nationality and whose marriages were contracted under terms and conditions which are different from, and on occasion more beneficial than, those provided for in Belgian law.

Can the Commission say whether the EC-Belgium agreement concerning the seat of the various EC institutions contains any provisions on this subject?

If private international law is applicable between the nationals of the Member States concerned and the authorities thereof, could the Commission find out from the Belgian authorities what the reasons are for the impediments to the application thereof which are encountered by EC officials living in Belgium (though not of Belgian nationality) and involved in divorce proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (23 March 1998)

Community officials acting in an official capacity are covered by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, in particular Article 12 thereof.

With regard to acts falling within private law, divorce included, Article 23 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities provides that, subject to the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, officials are not exempted from fulfilling their private obligations nor complying with the law and police regulations in force. It follows that the status of Community officials does not make their position any different from that of other persons in the same Member State.

Non-Belgian Community officials residing in Belgium are accordingly subject to Belgian divorce laws and the rules of private international law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Framework for Community action in the field of water policy

The Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(97)0049 - 97/0067(SYN)) ((OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20. )). With reference to Article 12, will the Commission provide wholly clear definitions as regards the substance of the tariffing systems for the various water users, which will have to be laid down by the Member States, given that the present wording of the proposal fails to define key concepts such as recovery of costs, calculation of prices, and so forth?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0344/98, E-0345/98, E-0346/98, E-0347/98 and E-0348/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Parliament has scheduled its discussions on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy ((COM(97)47. COM(97)614. COM(98)76. )) for the March 1998 and April 1998 meetings of the environment committee. The Commission will address the questions raised by the Honourable Member during those meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0348/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Framework for Community action in the field of water policy

The Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (COM(97)0049 - 97/0067(SYN)) ((OJ C 184, 17.6.1997, p. 20. )). With reference to Article 6, will the Commission lay down a requirement that hydraulic structures and economic activities using or affecting bodies of water must be subject to environmental impact assessment?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0344/98, E-0345/98, E-0346/98, E-0347/98 and E-0348/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

The Parliament has scheduled its discussions on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy ((COM(97)47. COM(97)614. COM(98)76. )) for the March 1998 and April 1998 meetings of the environment committee. The Commission will address the questions raised by the Honourable Member during those meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/98 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: Law and order among tourists

As part of its work on Justice and Home Affairs, has the Council discussed the proper enforcement of law and order when incidents arise between or among tourists visiting another Member State?

Does the Council agree that incidents such as violent assaults by one tourist on another should be dealt with by appropriate action, including prosecution, rather than by simply deporting the offender without taking any action or even by allowing tour operators to relocate offenders in another tourist location?

Answer (28 May 1998)

1. Up to now, the Council has not received any proposal based on Article K.3 of the EU Treaty concerning the specific problem mentioned by the Honourable Member.

2. However, the Council has addressed some problems arising from football hooliganism in a Council Resolution of 9 June 1997 ((OJ C 193, 24.6.1997, p. 1. )) on preventing and restraining football hooliganism through the exchange of experience, exclusion from stadiums and media policy.

3. It has also considered the threat to public order from other types of international gathering in a Joint Action of 26 May 1997 with regard to cooperation on law and order and security ((OJ L 147, 5.6.1997, p. 1. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/98 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Radioactive waste and Article 18 of Directive 92/3/Euratom

Will the Commission indicate the respective dates on which Member States submitted data on the shipments of radioactive wastes to the Commission as required under Article 18 of Directive 92/3/Euratom ((OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24. )) on shipments of radioactive waste between Member States? When does the Commission expect to publish its second bi-annual report on nuclear waste shipments?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission published in 1995 ((COM(95) 192 final. )) its first report on the application in the Member States of Directive 92/3/Euratom on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community.

The second report, covering the period 1994-1995 is presently being prepared. The Commission expects that the preparation of the report will be completed in a meeting of the advisory committee established by Article 19 of the Directive in June 1998.

The dates at which the Member States communicated to the Commission the information referred to in Article 18 of the Directive covering the period 1994-1995 are:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/98 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Driftnets

Although the Italian Government has promised to support a complete ban on the use of driftnets, the Italian fisheries union La Pesca recently met with the European Commission seeking an exemption for driftnets of 8 km and under.

What discussions did the Commission have with the Italian Government following that meeting? What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that Italy fulfills its obligations to ban the use of driftnets?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1998)

The Commission did not meet Italian fishermen's associations recently on the subject of the length of driftnets permitted for fishing. The Commission does not envisage any exemption to the current Community rules on driftnet length.

The Commission is monitoring the progress of the Italian plan for the restructuring of the driftnet fleet. It is hoped that the Italian fishermen and boat owners will strongly support the plan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/98 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Junk medicine

A recent investigation described in the journal of the Danish Nursing Council's periodical 'Sygeplejesken' has revealed that two-thirds of the medicines donated to former Yugoslavia were out- of-date or unusable. The investigation carried out by the European Organization for Health and Development concludes that medicines supplied in aid did more harm than good.

On the pretext of humanitarian aid, European companies have dumped large quantities of useless medicines. In donating their unwanted medicines as emergency aid they obtained tax advantages, free publicity and in particular, avoided the expense of destroying what were for the most part time-expired medicinal products.

1. Has the Commission satisfied itself that unusable and out-of-date medicinal products did not find their way into the emergency supplies sent to former Yugoslavia by the EU's own emergency organization, ECHO, and is the Commission satisfied that ECHO is not engaged in such practices at present?

2. How does the Commission intend to ensure that European companies comply with WHO guidelines on emergency aid in future? Is any European legislation being drawn up?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1998)

Various sources, including the World health organisation (WHO), have identified inappropriate drugs supplied globally to former Yugoslavia largely because they were small and non-professional consignments of unsorted medicines or half used drugs collected from private homes and charities or large donations of useless or unusable medicines, mainly from army stocks, which were either out of date or irrelevant (leprosy, etc).

The Commission, for its part, has consistently required its implementing partners to follow the WHO inter-agency guidelines for drug donations. Globally the WHO estimates that only 5% of drugs from all sources provided according to these guidelines were inappropriate.

Additionally, the Commission in close co-operation with WHO and through its implementing partner, 'Pharmaciens sans Frontières', has taken the initiative for a comprehensive programme of destruction of inappropriate drugs. The Commission has, therefore made significant efforts to solve the problem of inappropriate donations made by others.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/98 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Helms-Burton Act and EU appeal to the WTO

If the Commission wishes to appeal against the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel's decision relating to the extraterritoriality of the Helms-Burton Act on strengthening the embargo on Cuba, it must do so by 13 April 1998.

Will the Commission state whether it intends to lodge an appeal with the WTO against the decision by the appointed deadline?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the replies it gave to Oral Questions H-106/98 by Mr Bontempi, H-107/98 by Mr Marset Campos, H-108 by Mr Manisco, H-115/98 by Mr Newens and H-117/98 by Mr Carnero Gonzalez during question time at Parliament's February 1998 part session ((Debates of the Parliament (February 1998). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/98 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Millennium and new technology

With the advance of new technology and the approach of the Millennium, am I in any danger of receiving a reply to earlier correspondence to the Commission?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0882/98, E-0883/98 and E-0884/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1998)

The Commission ensures that all correspondence is answered as quickly as possible. Much depends, however, on whether or not the reply needs to be translated, whether different departments have to cooperate in the drafting, and on the technical nature of the matters raised.

In the interests of effective cooperation between institutions, it has been decided that a letter from a Member of Parliament should normally be answered within three weeks. If a letter from a Member of Parliament is registered by the Commission's mail department on arrival, that department, which is part of the Secretariat-General, will monitor replies and send a reminder to the departments concerned if they fail to answer within the time limit. This procedure will not be affected by the approach of the millennium.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 606/98 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Council. Ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty



Official Journal C 304 , 02/10/1998 P. 0139



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/98 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Council (16 March 1998) Subject: Ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty On 2 October 1997 the Amsterdam Treaty was signed at the Spanish Royal Palace. What does the Council envisage by way of a timetable for the ratification of the Treaty by the various national parliaments? In view of the political importance of the Treaty, what institutional activities has the Council undertaken in order to win over public opinion? What is the situation as regards each individual Member State? Answer (28 May 1998) The Amsterdam Treaty * which emerged from the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States held from March 1996 to June 1997 * is to be ratified by the signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules. It is not for the Council to set a timetable for ratification or to take action to influence public opinion in the Member States in that context.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0732/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: EU funds for Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland since January 1995

What projects and Funds have provided Community resources for Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland since January 1995? Who were the beneficiaries and what sums were involved:-

1. for job promotion and combating long-term unemployment? From the European Regional Development Fund? The European Social Fund. The EAGGF and other EU funds?

2. to promote research and development? In the universities and colleges? In the private sector?

3. to promote relations and trade with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe?

4. from the youth programmes?

5. from the education and training programmes?

6. for women's projects?

7. for cultural projects?

What is the EU's assessment of the success of the measures?

How many jobs was it possible to create and for which occupational groups?

Are these jobs temporary or long term?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (25 May 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0281/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Detentions under the Port State Control Directive (95/21/EC)

How many vessels, broken down by category, have been detained under the Port State Control Directive (95/21/EC) ((OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1. )) in each Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0281/98 and E-0282/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The number of detentions per Member State since the implementation date of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (1 July 1996 to 31 December 1997) is as follows:

>TABLE>

The available statistics from the secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control cover all of 1996 and 1997 and include some non-Community members, however from the information available, the summary of detentions per ship type is indicated as a percentage, as follows:

>TABLE>

In accordance with Article 17 of Directive 95/21/EC, Member States have supplied the following information on the number of Port State Control inspectors (full-time equivalent) working on their behalf immediately after the entry into force of the Directive:

>TABLE>

Updated information is due by 1 October 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0860/98 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

Given the considerable scope it leaves the Member States to lay down special rules, can the directive really be regarded as suitable for harmonizing the legal situation?

Although the fourth recital places particular emphasis on the protection of young people, why is not a single provision devoted specifically to their protection?

Why is the advertising of less harmful 'light' cigarettes also prohibited, thus preventing them from competing for market shares with the more harmful brands?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0856/98, E-0857/98, E-0858/98, E-0859/98, E-0860/98, E-0861/98 and E-0862/98 (13/14 July 1998)

As the Honourable Member is aware, following a detailed debate in second reading on 13 May 1998, the European Parliament approved the Council's common position on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products without making any amendments to it. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

With particular reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, it should be emphasized that, when discussing the Commission proposal, the Council took great pains to produce a text which took into account both the efficient operation of the internal market and the requirements of ensuring a high level of health protection.

The reasoning which guided the Council's work on the proposal for a Directive was explained in detail in the recitals and in the statement of reasons which were sent to the European Parliament before its second reading. It will be for the Member States to adopt appropriate provisions to ensure that the Directive is so implemented as to enable the desired objectives to be attained.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to ensure application of the measures adopted by the Institutions pursuant to the Treaty and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them and to ensure that they comply with the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Antibiotics for animals

Euro-coop recently submitted a request calling for a complete ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed within the European Union.

In view of the problems which antibiotics may cause if they are used for purposes other than therapeutic ones, and given the need for a clear and responsible EU food policy which guarantees consumer protection, is the Commission considering any action to prevent the use of antibiotics in animal feed within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1998)

The use of antibiotics as additives in feedingstuffs is regulated by Council Directive 70/524/EEC ((OJ L 270, 14.12.1970. )). Only substances providing the necessary guarantees in terms of safety in use, effectiveness and controllability may be authorised under this Directive. If it is scientifically proven that the additive no longer meets one of these criteria, it is prohibited.

Over the past few months, the Commission has been approached by a number of Member States requesting that it prohibit antimicrobial drugs. In January 1997, Directive 97/6/EC ((OJ L 35, 5.2.1997. )) prohibited the use of the antibiotic avoparcin as an additive in feedingstuffs, and other applications are currently under examination.

The Commission drew up a protocol on a surveillance programme in six Member States on microbial bacterial resistance in animals which is to be carried out by the authorised antibiotic manufacturers in the Community in the coming weeks.

In the face of growing concerns being voiced in the scientific community, and in particular by the World Health Organisation, the Scientific Steering Committee has agreed to set up a multidisciplinary working group to consider the issue of the development of resistance to antimicrobial agents, taking into account aspects relating to human and veterinary medicine, and to animal feedingstuffs.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Threat to traditional train service on the Diakofto-Kalavrita rack railway in the Peloponnese

One of the oldest railway lines in Europe, the rack railway between Kalavrita and Diakofto in the Peloponnese, which has been operating for over a century is now threatened with closure because the relevant authorities no longer consider it economically viable.

Given the historical and traditional character of this train service which passes through a gorge of unique natural beauty with a wealth of flora and fauna and given also its importance for the local tourist industry, will the Commission take measures to save and protect this small train which keeps alive the technology and traditions of a bygone era?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 April 1998)

The Commission is providing part-financing to cover 75% of the cost of purchasing two engines for the traditional railway line between Kalavrita and Diakofto. The project, which is estimated to cost ECU 1.72 million, has been approved by the Monitoring Committee for the operational programme for western Greece (subprogramme 2, measure 3, project 12).

Decisions on whether or not to maintain railway lines is a matter for the national authorities. The funding of this project, however, demonstrates the willingness of the authorities concerned to keep the line in question alive.