ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1258/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Patients influenced by the pharmaceuticals industry through unacceptable advertising for prescription medicines

1. Is the Commission aware of a report in the Dutch press (Trouw, 31 March 2000) which shows, on the basis of information from the advertising inspectorate, that the pharmaceuticals industry in the Netherlands is guilty of large-scale infringement of European rules on the advertising of prescription medicines?

2. The reports refer to huge abuses, in particular by infringing the rules on prescription medicines targeted at consumers. Does the Commission agree that this form of advertising must be vigorously stamped out?

3. The report gives the specific example of the drug Xenical manufactured by Roche. Is the Commission prepared to conduct an inquiry into this company's advertising campaign aimed at patients?

4. Is the Commission prepared to push for effective implementation and enforcement of the rules of the European Union which ban advertising targeted at patients and which include means of dealing with companies in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission has not been directly aware of the information published in the Dutch press.

Chapter II, on advertising for public purposes in Directive 92/280/EC(1) on advertising states that such advertising must be banned where this applies to medical products that can only be supplied on medical prescription. It is thus for the Member States to ensure that the market is monitored in terms of advertising in accordance with the provisions of that Directive. They will also lay down the penalties to be imposed where there is any infringement.

As regards the specific example of the medical product Xenical produced by Roche Laboratories: where this is a medical product whose marketing authorisation has been granted via the centralised procedure, i.e. by the Commission, after receiving the opinion of the Scientific Committee advising the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Product, the Commission will examine the problem raised with the holder of the marketing authorisation and with the Dutch authorities responsible for supervising advertising on their national territory. The holder of the marketing authorisation is, indeed, responsible for the advertising applying to those medical products for which he has obtained the marketing permit.

If it should emerge that there has been an infringement of Directive 92/28/EEC, the Commission will take the action needed.

(1) Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 13 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (OJ L 113, 30.4.1992).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/00

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Appropriations for improving the quality of agricultural products

The Budget Authority reserved an appropriation of 50 million in the year-2000 budget under heading B1-406 (improving processing and sales of agricultural products) for measures to improve the quality of agricultural products.

To date, no appropriations have been committed or paid out for that purpose.

1. Can the Commission state why no action has hitherto been taken to implement the Budget Authority's express wish?

2. Does the Commission consider it acceptable for the Budget Authority's express wish that these appropriations should be used to influence current developments in the Member States to be ignored?

3. What proposals will the Commission submit for ensuring that these appropriations can still be committed and paid out for that purpose? By what deadline can such proposals be expected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, budget item B1-406 is for part-financing of action taken by Member States and regions to improve the processing and marketing of agricultural products (notably through quality improvement and control). The terms of Articles 25 to 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1) and of Articles 21 to 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999(2) apply.

1. The Commission is at present examining the rural development programmes for 2000-2006 sent by the Member States for approval. Once approval has been given, the B1-406 appropriations will be used to part-finance expenditure incurred on the various rural development measures. As no programme has yet been approved no appropriations have yet been used.

2. Examination of most of the programmes sent by Member States is very advanced. They have the option of launching, without awaiting programme approval by the Commission, all operations leading to contracts with enterprises for application of their processing and marketing improvement measures. Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999 of 9 December 1999 laying down rules for transition to the rural development support provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999(3) even allows them to pay aid under such contracts from 1 January 2000, or from the date on which the Commission received the programme if this is later than 1 January. Such expenditure cannot however be reimbursed until after approval and must conform with the programme. Thus some expenditure has probably already been incurred but cannot yet appear in the Commission's accounts.

3. The Commission considers that the existing legislative framework will permit approval of the programmes in the near future and hence utilisation of the budget appropriations without any need for new proposals.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(3) OJ L 316, 10.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/00

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Agriculture HLCA schemes

Less-favoured area in Wales account for 82 % of the agricultural area. Compensation is available for those farmers in LFAs who suffer from what the Commission terms permanent natural handicap and the obvious difficulties climate, soil, topography that hamper farming these remote parts of Wales.

The current review of the HLCA scheme in the EU moves payments from a headage basis to an area basis. The Welsh Assembly has submitted a proposal to the Commission under the Rural Development Regulation.

Can the Commission confirm that all other Member State plans for the revised HLCA schemes will be based on standardised criteria and that it will not discriminate between one Member State and another Member State which may not apply the same national criteria?

Furthermore, will the Commission confirm that the UK will continue HLCA payments at the upper levels paid over the last two years and not revert back to 1997 levels which will cripple the agricultural community in Wales farming in less-favoured areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 May 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the impact of the new approach for payment of compensatory allowances in the less favoured areas of Wales, and requests assurance that first, the payments will be based on standardised criteria and second, the United Kingdom will maintain recent payment levels rather than those prior to 1997.

Chapter V (Articles 13-21) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(1) establishes a common framework and conditions for the implementation of compensatory allowances in less-favoured areas and areas with environmental restrictions. While payment of compensatory allowances is not mandatory, for those Member States choosing to implement such payments, the Commission can give assurance that they will comply with the terms of Articles 13-21. However, respecting the conditions laid down and the levels of aid specified in the annex to the regulation, it is not necessarily the case that all Member States will implement identical schemes. It should be noted that Article 37(4) allows Member States to lay down further or more restrictive conditions for granting Community support.

It is difficult to guarantee the former levels of aid as the payment system has switched from being based on livestock to an area based payment. However the Commission will assess whether hill life stock compensatory allowance schemes (HLCA) make an effective contribution to compensation for existing handicaps.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2290/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: DOTS anti-tuberculosis drugs programme

Is the Commission aware of the DOTS anti-tuberculosis drugs programme, which has been highly praised by the World Bank and the WHO?

What support is the EU presently giving to the DOTS drugs programme?

What EU support is planned for the DOTS programme in the future?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The Commission is aware and fully supportive of World Health Organisation (WHO) activities on tuberculosis (TB), such as the Stop TB initiative, based on the directly observed therapy short course (DOTS) strategy.

Many initiatives undertaken by the Community are important for TB control in Europe and in the rest of the world, such as the Community network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases(1), that brings into permanent communication the institutes and public health authorities dealing with infectious diseases. The Community action programme on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other communicable diseases(2), provides financial assistance to projects such as Euro-TB (surveillance of tuberculosis in 51 countries of the WHO European Region). Assistance programmes in favour of Central Eastern European Countries and New Independent States provide funding for projects in the area of disease prevention and control and health care system reform. The Commission plans to implement a Tacis project in Ukraine under the action programme 2000 to assist in combating TB by implementing the WHO recommended DOTS strategy, and by producing TB drugs that are compliant with good manufacturing practices.

In the field of development policy the Community has recently reiterated its commitment to combat the three major health scourges in Africa, human immunodeficiecy virus (HIV)/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In the context of the international cooperation with developing countries (INCO) programme, the Commission finances a project in Zambia aimed at the decentralization of TB treatment by using the DOTS strategy ( 1 million).

Through humanitarian aid during the last years the Commission has supported TB control projects in Russia based on the DOTS strategy with a financial contribution of about 3 million. Furthermore, the Commission has funded other projects related to TB control in Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine for a total of about 8 million.

In Community research policy under the fifth framework programme, Research for development is a priority area in international cooperation, and Infectious diseases is a key action that supports major projects on TB vaccine and drug development, as well as on epidemiology and diagnosis.

These Community actions, which complement initiatives undertaken by national authorities and international organisations, indicate a real commitment to fight tuberculosis throughout the world.

(1) Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24.9.1998 (OJ L 268, 3.10.1998).

(2) Decision No 647/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29.3.1996 (OJ L 95, 16.4.1996).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1681/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Buying-out arrangement for Netherlands pig farms

Appropriations intended for running down Netherlands pig herds are being used to buy up pig farms in Flanders. The Netherlands measure consequently risks overshooting the mark at European level: the upward pressure on the volume of fertiliser and manure produced in the Low Countries as a whole will not change.

Since the Commission:

(a) Is aware of the serious problems with which the Flemish Region is confronted owing to the presence of significant quantities of phosphates and nitrates (E-2686/99), and

(b) Has brought a complaint before the European Court of Justice against Netherlands fertiliser policy,

a coordinated approach to the fertiliser problem in the Low Countries clearly is urgently required

1. Will the Commission ask the Netherlands government to take action to stop appropriations intended for running down Netherlands pig herds from being used to buy up pig farms in Flanders, having regard to the serious problems with which the Flemish Region is confronted owing to the presence of significant quantities of phosphates and nitrates (E-2686/99), and to the complaint brought by the Commission before the European Court of Justice against Netherlands fertiliser policy? If not, why not?

2. Will the Commission ask the Netherlands government to take action to stop appropriations intended for running down Netherlands pig herds from being used to buy up pig farms in Flanders, since the Netherlands measure risks overshooting the mark at European level (the upward pressure on the volume of fertiliser and manure in the Low Countries as a whole will not change)? If not, why not, and does the Commission consider the practice of buying up Flemish pig farms with appropriations released under the Netherlands buy-out arrangement as compatible with a European approach to the fertiliser problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

The Commission is currently examining an existing scheme for the (intensive) livestock sector in the Netherlands under state aid rules.

The Dutch authorities have confirmed that subsidies can only be granted after approval of the scheme by the Commission. The statement that Dutch farmers are using subsidies granted for decreasing their pig stock to buy capacity

in Flanders has not been substantiated. Moreover, the Flemish authorities state that it is currently impossible for farmers, of whatever nationality, to buy up new manure rights, and thereby increase the production of manure in Flanders.

At this stage, the Commission has not yet taken a position on the proposed Dutch aid scheme. Therefore, it cannot yet indicate whether any conditions will be attached to a possible approval of the scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Discrimination in language studies on grounds of age

One must be 14 years of age in order to be able to begin studying at the official language school in Marbella, in the Spanish region of Andalusia, since the Regional Government's Official Gazette states that 14 is the ideal age at which to commence such studies.

Because of this approach, 416 people in all have been denied a place on some of the courses on offer at the aforementioned school, whose new rules give priority to pupils aged 14, 15 and 16.

Since this criterion amounts to a clear infringement of the fundamental rights which are constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens in EU Member States and cannot be challenged on any grounds, including age, does the Commission see the need for appropriate action to alter these discriminatory criteria and guarantee that all citizens wishing to study languages at the aforementioned school are equally entitled to do so, regardless of age?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty provides that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States. However, the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems remain the responsibility of the Member States. Introducing a minimum age for entry to a specialist language school where access to language courses is available to pupils of other schools is a matter of national jurisdiction.

The Commission is active in the field of language teaching and learning, in particular through the Lingua activities launched in 1989 which focussed on this area and were subsequently incorporated into the Socrates and Leonardo education and training programmes.

The Commission's White Paper of November 1995 on education and training: Teaching and Learning Towards the Learning Society(1) includes among its objectives proficiency in three Community languages.

(1) COM(95) 590 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Greyhound racing

According to the Commission, it is possible that Community aid is awarded for other purposes to companies, people or organisations who rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community (questions E-0826/00 and E-0919/00(1)). The Commission currently has no information on such beneficiaries.

Will the Commission obtain information from the companies, people or organisations to whom Community aid may have been awarded for other purposes, to ascertain whether they rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community?

If not, why does the Commission refuse to obtain such information in the light of the complaints about the ill-treatment of greyhounds used for racing?

If so, can the Commission forward this information to me as soon as it is available?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 115.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission does not intend to obtain information from companies, organisations or people to whom aid may have been awarded for other purposes, to ascertain whether they rear greyhounds or are involved in greyhound racing in the Community. The Commission would have no use for this information, the collection of which would involve some considerable cost. The Honourable Member is reminded that beneficiaries of Community aid may have multiple other interests which are not of interest for the award of Community aid.

Although the Commission shares the view that unnecessary animal suffering should be avoided, the prevention of mis-treatment of dogs in situations such as sporting events, falls under the sole responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0964/00

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Location of the IUCN Mediterranean office in Málaga

In her reply for the Commission to my question E-2415/99, Commissioner Wallström stated that the Mediterranean regional office of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is located in Seville, rather than, as I maintained, in Málaga.

I regret to have to contradict Mrs Wallström, but am obliged to point out that this office is indeed located in Málaga, in the Parque Tecnológico de Andalucía (Andalusia Technology Park). The Commission's information is, therefore, incorrect.

May I ask the Commissioner if, in order to confirm the correctness of my assertion, she or a representative of hers would be willing to pay a visit to the IUCN's Mediterranean regional office, in order to obtain first-hand knowledge of it and contribute to the development of the activities it is planning?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Honourable Member states that the Mediterranean regional office of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources (IUCN) is located in Malaga. While the latest information suggests that the location is likely to be Malaga it remains the Commission's understanding that to date the IUCN and the Spanish and local authorities are still negotiating the agreement for the opening of the IUCN office for the Mediterranean in Spain and that therefore an office address is not yet officially available.

The Member responsible for the environment has no plans to visit any of IUCN's offices in Europe at present. However, even though the Commission is not a member of IUCN, it has regular contacts with the organisation including visiting its offices whenever necessary for furthering several joint initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/00

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Water fluoridation

Across the European Union individual Member States are taking their own action against artificial water fluoridation. It is understood that Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy have all ceased fluoridation or refused to implement it on the grounds of scientific controversy and health concerns.

What action, if any, is the commission taking to investigate the effects of artificial water fluoridation on human health? What is the Commission's view on the concerns expressed by other Member States on the adverse effects of fluoridation? Does the Commission plan to introduce any directives on water fluoridation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

Drinking water quality is regulated in the Community by Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1), which will be replaced by 25 December 2003 by the recently adopted new drinking water Directive 98/83/EC of the Council of 3 November 1998(2). In both Directives there is a limit concerning the maximum admissible concentration of fluoride in drinking water, regardless of its origin, i.e. naturally present or artificially added. The matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility and the Commission is not concerned as long as the maximum limit set out in the Directive is respected. The policy Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors taking into account local customs and habits and can be very different from one Member State to the other. Unquestionably, fluoridation is a controversial issue because of the positive or negative effects fluoride might have, depending on the concentration of the substance in the drinking water.

The limit set out in the drinking water Directive is 1,5 milligram per litre (mg/l), which according to the view of the World Health Organisation (WHO) as expressed in its drinking water quality guidelines represents a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Positive effects start around 0,5 mg/l up to 2 mg/l. The more the concentration shifts upwards from 2 mg/l the more the risk of negative effects is increased i.e. dental fluorosis or even skeletal fluorosis at very high concentrations.

The Commission is not considering, at present, the revision of the legislation, as the new drinking water Directive has yet to be transposed (by 25 December 2000) and implemented. However, the Commission will examine if there is any new significant evidence since the adoption of the Directive, which can suggest a modification of the current position. In order to have an appropriate update on this matter, the Commission will consult its scientific committee on toxicity ecotoxicity and the environment.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.