ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3932/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: The rearmament of South Africa

The Republic of South Africa has just announced a broad programme of rearmament, including the purchase of warships, fighter aircraft, tanks, cannon and other heavy and light artillery from various European firms, in addition to the creation of jobs in the South African arms industry, which grew substantially as a result of the embargo during the apartheid era.

Can the Commission say:

1. what the total cost of these purchases was, stating which countries and firms benefited and what the repercussions on employment were in both South Africa and Europe;

2. whether there is any external threat to South Africa which might justify this operation;

3. what the likely impact of this expenditure will be on the current negotiations for an economic agreement between the EU and South Africa and what the overall effect is on its new status as Member State of the Lomé Convention?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

The Commission was not consulted, informed or otherwise involved in the program of arm's procurement of South Africa. It is however aware of South African press statements on this issue.

The Commission is not in a position, nor is it within its role, to assess the need to modernise South Africa's security and defense systems as decided by the South African government.

The Commission does not see any direct link between the South African decision referred to and the negotiations between the Community and South Africa or South Africa's new status as a Member State of the Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid for school milk

The EU has for years granted aid for school milk but only for the richest types (full-cream and low-fat milk) and not for types with a lower fat content (skimmed milk and buttermilk).

Does the Commission not think that it is healthier for children to get milk with a lower fat content at school so that from the outside they have a good nutritional diet?

Will the Commission take the initiative to ensure that EU aid is changed to include low-fat milk such as skimmed milk and buttermilk?

Will the Commission also take the initiative to ensure that ecological milk is also covered by the EU aid system?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The Community's school milk programme tries to strike a reasonable balance between the objectives of the common market organisation for milk of promoting and increasing milk products consumption, while also providing children with a valuable and nutritional food source. Given that over 90 % of the liquid milk consumed in the Community is either whole milk or semi-skimmed milk, both of which are eligible for subsidy under the scheme, consumer tastes and demand are substantially met. For those wishing to reduce the intake of milk fat, semi-skimmed milk seems a reasonable alternative which offers a good compromise in terms of fat intake, taste and vitamin content, given that the latter is substantially reduced by removing the fat part of the milk.

The Commission considers that the present range of eligible dairy products combined with the limited quantity of milk eligible for subsidy (250 ml per child and per day) are compatible with a sensible diet not involving over-consumption of saturated fats.

Under the existing rules for the school milk scheme, ecological milk is eligible for aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3109/98

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Book entitled "Konservatismus und Rechtradikalismus" ("Conservatism and right- wing radicalism")

Is it true that the Commission has financed or supported "Konservatismus und Rechtradikalismus", a book with a foreword by Emil Carlebach, a member of the national executive of the DKP (the German Communist Party), and Peter Gingold?

If so, why is the Commission funding anti-democratic, left-wing radical authors of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1998)

The Youth for Europe programme gives young people the opportunity to develop projects at a local level. This provides them with valuable experience of working on their own initiative (Action A.II.1 youth initiatives).

In the framework of this action the Commission financed a youth initiative project dealing with racism and xenophobia which produced the publication in question. This project was selected after compliance with the established selection criteria. It was approved by the German national agency of Youth for Europe and then accepted for funding by a selection panel, which consists of representatives of the Member States, the European youth forum and the Commission. The final evaluation of the project demonstrates that the activities stated in the application have been duly completed. However, a controversial publication has been produced, based on the experience of the project participants, which contains contributions from those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission was informed of this publication only after the project managers had handed in their final report.

The Commission is of the opinion that this publication, which was produced entirely on the initiative of the project participants, should be tolerated in a pluralist society, which respects a variety of different opinions. Moreover, young people should be encouraged to deal with the difficult subjects of racism and xenophobia.

However, the controversial discussion of the present publication has led the Commission to instruct the national agencies to apply stricter criteria regarding the evaluation of the content of projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Budget chapter for the protection of animals during transport

As a result of Commission Decision 90/425/EEC(1) Chapter B-251 allocates ECU 2 500 000 for monitoring the protection of animals for slaughter during transport inside and outside the European Union.

In view of the importance and urgency of the issue, can the Commission state the timescale, practicalities and objectives of the projects and the beneficiaries of the expenditure under this chapter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 1999)

The amount of EUR 2,5 million entered in the budget does not come under Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, whose financial implications are covered by Item B2-5101"Other measures in the veterinary field" and the associated remarks.

That sum was entered by the budgetary authority itself under Article B2-511"Checks on application of the rules in agriculture" with the remark "A further ECU 2 500 000 is earmarked to cover expenditure on the monitoring of animal protection provisions during the transport of animals for slaughter inside and outside the European Union."

Directive 90/425/EEC deals only with internal trade and, in Article 1, explicitly excludes checks on animal welfare during transport from its field of application.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4017/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Discrimination against rural areas in the telecommunications industry

Is the Commission aware that, in the United Kingdom, the largest telecommunications company, British Telecom, has recently introduced what appears to be a discriminatory price differentiation for services provided to businesses located more than 25 kilometres from one of their fourteen service centres? Does the Commission plan to take any action to prevent such discrimination by monopoly undertakings against already disadvantaged rural areas?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

Condition 17 of the British Telecom (BT) licence prohibits undue preference and undue discrimination. Users who claim to be suffering from undue discrimination in relation to any tariff can therefore submit their case to the Office of telecommunications (OFTEL) which has the power to investigate and where necessary enforce BT's licence conditions.

Given the existence of this national procedure, and in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not intend to start an own-initiative inquiry regarding the practice described.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3642/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Noise pollution linked to air traffic

Air traffic is increasing by from 3 to 6 % a year and short-haul aircraft in particular are responsible for the most serious polluting emissions.

The noise suffered by people living near airports may lead to chronic insomnia and various health problems.

Following numerous complaints by those living near airports, some Member States have taken steps to ban some or all night flights, thus distorting competition in the EU.

In its Green Paper on future noise policy, the Commission stresses the need for restrictive emission standards.

The European Parliament has called for uniform binding standards throughout Union territory to limit noise from aircraft and areas near airports (resolution A4-0183/97)(1) and for a ban on night flights in certain circumstances (resolution A4-0279/98), and the joint transport and environment Council of 17 June 1998 envisaged the adoption of measures to reduce aircraft noise and polluting emissions as part of a policy of sustainable mobility that meets health and environmental requirements.

What proposals is the Commission envisaging to limit the noise pollution inflicted on inhabitants, environmental damage and distortions of competition in the transport sector?

Does the Commission not think that night flights should be strictly limited, if not banned, throughout EU territory?

Is it considering abolishing preferential arrangements such as tax-free kerosene for air transport?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

With a view to limiting the noise nuisance for people living around airports by targeting the most noisy types of aircraft, Community legislation already provides for the limitation of the operation of certain noisy aircraft (Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (l988))(2). The Commission has submitted a proposal relating to hushkitted aircraft(3) which will build upon existing legislation.

More generally, the Commission will address the environmental and competition aspects of local restrictions to air transport in its forthcoming Communication on Air Transport and the Environment. This will include an assessment of the scope and contents of a possible future Community framework on operating restrictions at noise constrained airports (including the issue of night restrictions), taking into account the specific responsibility of local and regional authorities in this area.

Concerning the taxation of kerosene, at the request of the Council a study on the economic and environmental impact of such taxation under different scenarios relating to taxation levels and the scope of application is currently being finalised. The Commission intends to present its assessment of the results of this study in the above-mentioned Communication.

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(3) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2920/98

by Alan Gillis (PPE) to the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Subject: Conversion aid for regeneration

Given that assistance is available in some areas for reconversion, e.g. schemes which are assisting redevelopment in mining areas in North Wales, what are the possibilities for areas of North Offaly, Ireland, affected by heavy job losses resulting from cuts in operations by Bord na Mona (national peat production) and by ESB (Electricity Supply Board), the major employers in the region, to be included in such schemes?

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

(16 October 1998)

Areas in North Wales traditionally dependent on coal-mining have benefited from redevelopment schemes under initiatives such as Rechar. The areas of North Offaly mentioned by the Honourable Member do not qualify for such aid because they are not coal-mining areas. However, Ireland is a single objective 1 region with a Community support framework covering the whole country. It is therefore always open to the Irish authorities to adjust priorities, within their overall structural funds budget, so as to target a specific area in need of reconversion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Problems for opticians wishing to practise in Greece

A strange policy is being pursued in Greece in connection with authorization to practise as an optician. Although Council Directive 89/48/EEC(1) on recognition of professional qualifications is in force and the Italian Ministry of Health grants authorization to practise (following examinations) to opticians who began their studies in Greece and completed them in Italy, Greece refuses to comply with its commitments and does not reciprocate. The outcome of this situation is that opticians who started and completed their studies in Community countries, and have obtained authorization to practise in one of them, are unable to work in Greece.

Is this policy consistent with the fundamental principles of the EU concerning freedom of movement of workers and what action does the Commission intend to take to remove the constraints on Greek opticians who have completed their studies in Italy?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The problems to which the honourable Member refers stem primarily from the fact that Greece has not transposed Council Directive 92/51/EEC(2) of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC(3). Directive 92/51/EEC should have been transposed by the Member States by 18 June 1994.

Italian opticians' diplomas are in fact covered by Directive 92/51/EEC. Training as an optician appears for Italy in Annex C to the directive, which means that the qualification is regarded as a diploma in accordance with Directive 92/51/EEC. The directive provides for the general system for the recognition of diplomas to apply to a person with professional qualifications equivalent to a diploma within the meaning of Directive 92/51/EEC in a Member State where a diploma within the meaning of Directive 92/51/EEC is required to enter the profession. This would apply in Greece to the profession of optician.

The Commission has therefore opened an infringement procedure against Greece for failure to commmunicate the measures for transposing Directive 92/51/EEC. The matter has been referred to the Court of Justice(4).

The Greek authorities communicated the measures for transposing the directive in question in August 1998. The Commission is currently examining this legislation.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(4) Case C-98/289.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3232/98 by Glenys KINNOCK INTERREG III



Official Journal C 289 , 11/10/1999 P. 0027



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3232/98 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (26 October 1998) Subject: INTERREG III Will INTERREG III continue to fund cross-border cooperation for maritime regions? Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1998) Interreg III is intended to continue the cross-border and transnational approaches to co-operation supported under Interreg II, including co-operation among maritime regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Ban on antibiotics in animal feed

Can the Commission explain the procedure it is using to seek to ban the use of four antibiotic growth promoters and can it state whether its proposal is based on scientific or political considerations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The use of additives in animal feed is regulated by Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1).

Prohibition of the four additives to which the Honourable Member refers has been proposed by the Commission since under Article 3a of the Directive it considers that "for serious reasons concerning human or animal health" their use must "be restricted to medical or veterinary purposes".

As the preamble to the Regulation adopted by the Council on 17 December 1998(2) states, withdrawal of authorisation for bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, virginiamycin and tylosin phosphate is to be perceived as a precautionary measure dictated by the need to preserve the effectiveness of human medicaments and so protect human health.

The decision taken is in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation conference of October 1997, the Economic and Social Committee, the International Office of Epizootics and the Copenhagen conference on antibiotic resistance of September 1998.

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.

(2) COM(98) 763 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3609/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: High-tension power line in Bal de Chistau

Since the early 1990s the inhabitants of Bal de Chistau, in the Aragón Pyrenees, have used every possible legal argument in their fight against the construction of a high-tension power line between France and Spain which would come through the La Pez pass. In their efforts to protect what is virtually an unspoiled valley they have received support from all the political parties represented in Aragón and a large number of groups and associations of all kinds, ranging from environmental bodies to business associations and chambers of commerce.

The project is being promoted by Red Eléctrica Española in conjunction with its French counterpart, Electricité de France, and it involves the construction of a 400 000-volt power line linking the French and Spanish electricity grids. If the line is routed through Bal de Chistau the local people fear that it could jeopardise the development of tourism in the area on account of the serious impact it would have on health conditions, the environment and the landscape. For some time the company behind the project - Red Eléctrica Española (REE) - abandoned any hope of being able to go ahead with it on account of the obstacles in its path, and it began to consider possible alternative routings. However, the REE regional director, Agustí Maure, has recently said that his company has proposed four possible routes to the Spanish Government and that the Chistau option is once again under consideration.

Does the Commission know what stage this project has reached? If so, what action could it take to prevent the line from being constructed along a route which would seriously affect the fora and fauna of the Poset Maladeta Park and the tourist development of an area which has no other resources at its disposal?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The Commission has been aware since 1991 of the Aragón-Cazaril project to carry electricity between France and Spain, which might cross the Gistain valley in Aragón, Spain. This aims to reinforce electricity interconnection capacity between France and Spain, and is a priority project of the Trans European energy networks. Much of the line has already been built, but not the crossing of the Pyrenean region. The Commission understands that some alternative layouts are under study, but no final decision has been taken.

If, as the Honourable Member indicates, the Spanish government is considering alternative ways of implementing the project, including a crossing of the Gistain valley, this does not reveal that a breach of Community environmental law may occur and therefore the Commission is not in a position to intervene in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3187/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Meat hygiene: Poultry

Does the Commission know how many Member States have successfully fully implemented the Poultry Meat Directive (71/118/EEC)(1)? Can the Commission also confirm whether all Member States have properly enforced the presence of at least one official veterinary surgeon in slaughter houses, as required under this Directive?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that all the Member States have notified the national measures taken in order to comply with Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting the trade in fresh poultry meat as amended and updated by Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992(2). In order to verify the application of this directive the Veterinary and phytosanitary office carried out in 1994 and 1995 evaluation visits in all the Member States. The findings have been presented to the Member States and discussed with them. Some deficiencies in transposition and implementation and in particular in the field of the presence of the official veterinarian have been pointed out in some Member States. Recommendations for modification of the existing legislation are being considered during the preparation of the "simplification project".

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it is for the time being short of staff in the sector of veterinary inspection. Further verification of the application of the requirements of Council Directives 71/118/EEC is necessary, but the Commission can only use its scarce resources to address a limited number of priorities. A procedure to recruit new staff has been initiated and the poultry sector will become one of the priorities of the Food and veterinary office.

The Commission is always ready to provide the Honourable Member with more detailed information.

(1) OJ L 55, 8.3.1971, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3696/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Diamond imports from Angola

What measures have so far been adopted by Member States to prohibit the direct or indirect import from Angola into their territory of all diamonds that are not controlled through the GURN certicate-of-origin regime?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Following the adoption by the the United Nations security council of additional sanctions against União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) (Resolution 1173 of 12 June 1998), the Council adopted common position 98/425/PESC of 3 July 1998(1) and Council Regulation (EC) 1705/98 of 28 July 1998 concerning the interruption of certain economic relations with Angola in order to induce UNITA to fulfil its obligations in the peace process, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 2229/97(2).

Prohibiting the import of goods into the Community is an exclusive competence of the Community. For that reason, the import of diamonds originating in or coming from Angola which are not accompanied by a certificate of origin delivered by the Government of unity and national reconciliation of Angola, is prohibited by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1705/98. This prohibition is directly applicable in all Member States.

The implementation of this Regulation is the joint responsibility of Member States and the Commission. Article 8 of the Regulation obliges Member States to inform the Commission and other Member States on relevant issues. So far no reports have been received on any difficulties encountered in respect of imports of diamonds not accompanied by a certificate of origin delivered by the government of unity and national reconciliation of Angola.

(1) OJ L 190, 4.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 215, 1.8.1998.