ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Food safety

Short-term scientific evidence led to problems such as BSE and Thalidomide. Such occasions have dramatically affected the health of humans and animals for the worst and shaken the consumer confidence in food safety. Will the precautionary principle be applied by the new Authority, and how will it interrelate with other institutions such as the World Trade Organisation?

The cost of such problems in terms of human misery, not to mention the financial loss, is incalculable. How does the Commission intend determining who bears responsibility and sanctions for not fulfilling that responsibility?

Or is the Commission satisfied with the Product Liability Directive being drawn up in a discussion with the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission adopted a Communication on the precautionary principle with the aim, inter alia, of outlining the Commission's approach to it and establishing Commission guidelines for its application, as well as providing an input to the debate on this issue, both within the Community and internationally.

The Commission considers that applying the precautionary principle is a decision relating to risk management. The new European food authority will be entrusted with risk assessment and risk communication whereas risk management would remain the preserve of the Commission, Parliament and Council, as appropriate.

Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement of the World trade organisation sets out a framework for sanitary or phytosanitary regulatory measures that affect international trade, where scientific evidence is insufficient. The Commission considers that the guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle proposed in the communication, are not only consistent with Article 5.7 but also an appropriate tool to apply the said Article. Therefore, the application of this principle should not contravene the international obligations of the Community.

With regard to the issue of product liability, the Commission points out that in July 1999 it adopted a green paper(1). The Commission is presently analysing the comments received on the green paper and will present a report on the application of the product liability directive by the end of this year.

(1) COM(1999) 396 final Liability for Defective Products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Repeal of legislation

How many pieces of legislation (directives, regulations, decisions) have been repealed in each year for the last ten years?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 2000)

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Medicines for children

Is the Commission aware that in Europe 67 % of children in hospitals have medicines administered to them which are not intended specifically for children (unlicensed and off-label medicines)? In the case of newborn babies, the figure is as high as 90 % (see annex).

In the United States, the Government has amended legislation so as to encourage pharmaceutical companies to carry out research into medicines specifically for children. Subsidies have also been paid to provide further encouragement.

Will the Commission likewise arrange for such research to be carried out in Europe and make the necessary funding available for it?

Will the Commission propose a directive on the administration of medicines specifically to children, along the lines of the US legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 May 2000)

It is quite true that in the vast majority of cases and in most therapeutic areas the medicines administered to children are not in a suitable pharmaceutical form and have not been subjected to clinical studies that have been targeted on that category of patient. Thus, in those instances, the marketing licences do not provide for administration to children. Doctors needing to treat their patients use medicines intended for adults, basing themselves on the limited amount of data available, although these have not been evaluated, adjust the doses, and have pharmaceutical forms that can be administered to children prepared in hospital dispensaries.

Following the example of orphan drugs, this can be explained by their lack of profitability and also by the difficulty in producing a range of dose rates that are suitable for the various age categories. Indeed, only the liquid pharmaceutical forms enable a practical adjustment to be made. However, most of the active ingredients are in solid form, which as a general rule is more stable.

It is certain that access to treatment of that category of patient should move towards incentives such as those provided in the United States. This being the case the set of regulations for orphan drugs just drawn up by the Commission could serve as a basis for a set of regulations by adopting the criteria set.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Removal of the Greek tobacco variety Katerini from Italy's register of Community tobacco varieties

Regulation 660/99(1) permitted the transfer to Italy of a quota of the Greek tobacco variety Katerini (500 tonnes for 1999, 1500 tonnes for 2000 and 2001) without providing any justification, despite the objections raised by Greece. Regulation 1373/99(2) permitted Italy, again without any justification, to transfer quantities of the variety Katerini to other groups of varieties, thereby restricting production of Katerini in Italy to 48 tonnes.

After the total failure of this attempt to transfer the Greek variety Katerini to Italy, does the Commission intend to remove it from Italy's register of Community varieties for the marketing years 2000 and 2001?

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 10.

(2) OJ L 162, 26.6.1999, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The fixing of guarantee thresholds for tobacco of variety group VII (Katerini) in Italy by Council Regulation (EC) No 660/1999 of 22 March 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92(1) for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests is justified by one of the basic objectives of the 1998 reform of the common organisation of the market (COM) in tobacco: the need to reorientate production towards the varieties most sought after on the market.

Under Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(2) Member States can ask the Commission for authorisation to transfer part of their guarantee threshold allocations between the various groups of varieties. The Commission examines the requests for transfer and checks that they do not give rise to additional expenditure for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and do not result in an increase in each Member State's overall guarantee threshold.

To date, the Commission has received no request for transfer for Italy concerning group VII (Katerini), but a transfer remains possible until the deadline for concluding cultivation contracts.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/00

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

(26 January 2000)

Subject: Inclusion of Galicia in the trans-European high-speed rail networks during the 2000-2006 period

Is it true that the Spanish Government has submitted to the Commission a proposal for Galicia to be included in the trans-European high-speed rail networks as part of the reform which is due to take place in the current year (2000) and which has been announced by the Commissioner responsible for relations with the European Parliament, transport and tourism as being scheduled for the current month of January?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0088/00, E-0092/00 and E-0093/00 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

At the current stage of the thought being given to the revision of the Community approach towards the trans-European transport network Parliament and Council Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996(1), the Commission has not been aware of any specific new high-speed projects in Spain. The amounts mentioned by the Honourable Member have, in the main, been set aside for upgrading the

conventional railway lines to Galicia in order to achieve speeds of roughly 200 kilometres per hour (km/h) between Madrid and Monforte de Lemos, and upgrading the conventional lines to Orense and Santiago and towards La Coruna, Vigo et Oporto (Portugal).

As regards the development study of the Vigo-Oporto Atlantic corridor referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would confirm that 50 % of the total cost of that study was co-financed in 1999. Its basic aim covered the following two areas: launching transport infrastructure projects in the areas being examined (Galicia and Northern Portugal) while seeking practical joint public/private funding options, and gradually helping to integrate the ground, sea and air transport infrastructure networks, thus guaranteeing the lasting mobility of persons and goods. The results of the study are expected in 2001.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/00

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in the various EU Member States in the period 1997-1999

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by each EU Member State under the EAGGF Guarantee Section in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

(a) by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, fruit and vegetables, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

(b) by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 27th and 28th financial reports of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) guarantee section(1) for the data concerning 1997 and 1998 requested in the first part of her written question.

The financial report for 1999 is not yet available and so the Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat extracts of the data to be included therein concerning the information requested for 1999.

As for the second part of her written question, the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat some additional tables concerning the information requested for 1997, 1998 and 1999.

However, the Commission would like to underline that all the information which it is sending direct in respect of the1999 financial year has not yet been subject to a financial clearance of accounts and for this reason should not be considered as final.

(1) COM(98) 552 and COM(1999) 568.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1890/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Use of languages by the Commission in the Brussels Capital Region

In the new contracts of the European Commission Research Directorates General Shared Cost RTD CPF Forms Electra A6 for shared-cost R&D projects under the Fifth Framework Programme (1999-2000), the Commission uses only the address Rue de la Loi Bruxelles. This gives the misleading impression that the 19 Brussels communes are French-speaking. According to the Constitution of the Belgian Federation, these communes form part of the bilingual Brussels Capital Region.

1. Will the Commission and its departments in future use both the Dutch and French addresses for their correspondence, in view of the bilingual status of the 19 communes in the Brussels Capital Region? If not, why do the Commission and its departments refuse to acknowledge the bilingual character of the communes concerned by using both the Dutch and French-language addresses in their correspondence?

2. Will the Commission and its departments in future use both the Dutch and French addresses for their correspondence in order to avoid displaying any preference for the Dutch-speaking or the French-speaking community in the Brussels Capital Region? If not, why do the Commission and its departments demonstrate their preference for the French-speaking community by using only French-language addresses in their correspondence?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission acknowledges the bilingual status of the boroughs within the metropolitan Brussels region. The Commission's headed notepaper in Brussels gives the address in both French and Dutch where the heading is in a language other than those two. The rules applies not only to mail but also to any other printed matter or publication.

Those rules were covered by an instruction sent out to the (Commission's) departments on 6 March 1995 and have also been incorporated into the Manual of Procedures (cf. Item 17.5.2.).

The example quoted by the Honourable Member was due to an error. The Commission has taken action to remind the departments concerned of the abovementioned rules and to ensure that this error is corrected in the next publication.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2159/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Application for student loans

This question is tabled in response to an enquiry from my constituents, Mr and Mrs Grief, formerly of Kings Lynn, Norfolk, who now reside in Spain, regarding their two sons Anthony and Jonathan (aged 19 years).

Anthony and Jonathan resided in Norfolk from 3 November 1981 to 13 August 1990 and were then taken to Spain by their parents until 3 September 1998, when they returned to live with other family members in Kings Lynn. They have lived at that address ever since. They have therefore spent eight years in Spain with their parents. Is there any element of EU law of which the European Commission is aware that could determine whether or not these students should or should not be able to qualify for a UK student loan to undertake higher education?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

At this stage of development of Community law, Member States are competent to establish the modalities of student support (grants, student loans or any other form of financial help). They must however respect the principle of equality of treatment which means that the university or college where a citizen of the Union wishes to study must accept them under the same conditions as nationals. Therefore, if a grant is paid to nationals of the Member State where a citizen of another Member State wishes to study to cover course fees (tuition fees), he or she must be able to receive it. However, the principle of equality of treatment as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of justice does not apply to support for maintenance and in the case of the United Kingdom to grants, student loans and supplementary grants, intended to help students pay their daily living

expenses, unless the student is, at the same time, a migrant worker or a family member of a migrant worker. It should be recalled that, as Community law now stands, migrant workers and their family members have wider rights in the host Member State, notably as regards social advantages, than other Union students.

However, the Honourable Member has not provided enough information for the Commission to establish whether Mr and Mrs Grief or their children have rights under Community law as migrant workers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/00

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Scientific cooperation with developing countries

In the Commission's communication Towards a European research area, the aim of which is to foster the creation of a genuine European research and innovation community, no reference is made to the Union's scientific cooperation with developing countries.

In view of the importance of scientific cooperation as a means of stimulating development and growth in the developing countries, can the Commission explain the nature of its strategy for scientific cooperation with developing countries for the Sixth Framework Programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The absence of an explicit reference to scientific & technological (S&T) cooperation with developing countries from the Commission's communication Towards a European Research Area(1) does not signal a change in policy. It reflects only the fact that this communication, as the title implies, focuses on issues within the geographical boundaries of the Community.

As a matter of fact, the sizeable volume of S&T cooperation activities carried out with developing countries in all the Research and technological development (RTD) framework programmes, underscores the importance assigned to S&T cooperation with Asia (ASEM), Latin America & Caribbean (ALCUE), the Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelona process) and Africa (Cairo Summit).

As for the preparation of future research activities of the Community, a general orientation document is currently being prepared by the Commission. This document, to be released for discussion in early autumn, will be followed by the formal proposal for the 6th RTD framework programme, in early 2001.

The strategy for R&D cooperation with development countries is being discussed within this wider framework.

In preparing for this S&T cooperation, the Commission will take into consideration the necessary complementary and synergistic use of the instruments available in the RTD and external relations policies, specifically those pertaining to the political relations, trade and development cooperation policies.

(1) COM(2000) 6 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1951/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Submission of citrus fruit restructuring programme under the third CSF for Greece.



Official Journal 081 E , 13/03/2001 P. 0116 - 0117



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1951/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 June 2000) Subject: Submission of citrus fruit restructuring programme under the third CSF for Greece According to its answer to a previous written question of mine E-1837/99(1), in July 1999 the Commision rejected the programme for improving citrus fruit production submitted by Greece in July 1998. Since this programme is considered important for the citrus fruit sector in Greece, will the Commission say: does the third CSF (Operational Programme for Agriculture and regional operational programmes) submitted by Greece for approval include actions in favour of citrus fruits? If so, how much are they worth and which regions do they cover? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 31. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 July 2000) The Commission has been informed by the Greek authorities that schemes to adjust the citrus fruit sector would be proposed as part of operational programmes for the regions. Negotiations on these programmes have just started and one of the key issues in this connection is to ask the Greek authorities to clarify their proposals for appropriate schemes and measures. As a result, the Commission does not at the present time have precise data on the exact nature of such schemes, or their volumes and geographical locations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/00

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

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a federation of nation states by the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer

Is the European Council considering the proposal made as part of the preparation of the IGC by the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, as regards extending the issues which might be covered by the reform of Treaties scheduled for this year? Does the Council think that the reinforced cooperation mechanism would legally permit, over and above cooperation on specific issues, institutional reforms such as Mr Fischer is proposing? Would the use of reinforced cooperation allow the setting-up, by only certain Member States, of a government and a two chamber parliament duplicating the European Union's Council, Commission and Parliament?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Honourable Member should be aware that the reflections made by Mr Joschka Fischer on extending the issues which might be covered by the reform of the Treaties scheduled for this year were not addressed either to the Council nor to the Intergovernmental Conference as such. His specific views have therefore not been discussed. Indeed, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment on the view of any individual member.

The Honourable Member is probably aware, moreover, that the Council has no role whatsoever in the work of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, and is therefore unable to comment on work being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.