ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/681

(2004/C 84 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0839/04

by João Gouveia (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

— the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

— Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’;

— both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

— the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

— in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

— these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

— the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

— in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO.

1. Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?
2.

Does the Commission intend to support measures aimed at ensuring that workers are given more information about and are more involved in company decisions, so as to prevent drastic industrial restructuring decisions from having adverse repercussions in the future?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/253

(2004/C 88 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: GMOs

Is the Commission aware of the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy Scmeiser v Monsanto? The case involves the issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic crops as well as the intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment on the one hand and infringement of patent on the other.

Questions have been raised in the court case as to whether infringement of patent can occur even if the farmers accused of infringement may have themselves been victims of non-intentional spread of GMOs.

In response to Written Question E-0819/03 (1), the Commission referred to its international discussions on liability and redress in the context of the Biosafety Protocol. Will the Commission be seeking to ensure that safeguards are included so that a recurrence of such a legal situation may be prevented?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member mentions in his question the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto regarding an alleged infringement of a patent following the spread of genetic material into conventional crops.

In the EU, the infringement of patents is governed by the law of the Member States. The Commission is not aware of the existence of any difficulties of the kind in question within the EU.

The Honourable Member refers in particular to the discussions on liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

The First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004, agreed to launch a process with respect to the elaboration of appropriate international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress. For this purpose the Meeting of the Parties established an Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress – open to all Parties – which will meet five times between 2005 and 2007, and adopted broad terms of reference for this Group. In addition, the Meeting of the Parties decided that later in 2004 a technical group of experts will meet to undertake the necessary preparatory work for this process.

The terms of reference adopted by the Meeting of the Parties are rather broad and leave all options open for discussion by Parties. It is therefore impossible at this early stage to predict the scope and nature of the rules and procedures to be adopted at the end of the negotiation process.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission will do its utmost in the forthcoming negotiations to achieve workable and effective rules and procedures which will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 358.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/332

(2004/C 84 E/0391)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0236/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Job advertisements for ‘native speakers’

The European Commission has supported the view expressed in a number of parliamentary questions on the use of the term ‘native speakers’ in job advertisements that the use of terms such as ‘mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ contravenes Community law on the free movement of workers. The Commission has also emphasised its intention to use its legal powers, where necessary, to prohibit the use of terms such as ‘native speaker’ in job advertisements.

Technical support offices, non-governmental organisations and certain firms engaged in European activities have persisted in publishing job advertisements aimed exclusively at ‘native English speakers’ and applicants with ‘English mother tongue’. Recent examples can be found at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15.

What action does the Commission intend to take against firms and NGOs that stipulate ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speakers’ in their job advertisements? Does the Commission intend to do more to prevent such violations of the principle of the free movement of workers?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3694/98

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The stunning of poultry for slaughter

Directive 93/119(1) permits the customary waterbath method for the stunning of poultry. However, in recent years methods of gas stunning of poultry have been developed which result in an improved quality end product and better guarantees of animal welfare. Some of these methods are based on two research projects financed by the EU: AIR 3 Project CT94-0885 and Volair EU 113711.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the gas stunning of poultry can produce better results, in terms of both product quality and animal welfare, than the waterbath method?

2. Can the Commission indicate when it will implement Article 13(2)(b) and (c) of the Directive which states that the Commission shall submit, no later than 31 December 1995, proposals concerning the gas stunning of animals?

3. Does the Commission agree that speed is of the essence in submitting these proposals from the economic point of view and, more importantly, from the point of view of animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

In June 1998 the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare reported on the use of mixtures of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen for stunning or killing poultry(2). The report showed that, in comparison with electricity, the use of combinations of these gases can improve the quality of the meat and the welfare of the animals.

Based on the opinion of the scientific veterinary committee, the Commission is preparing a proposal for the stunning and killing of animals, which should be presented shortly.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm.dg24/health/sc/scah/outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/98

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Irregularity in the authorisation for the construction of an incinerator at Drogenbos (Belgium)

During Question Time at the second March 1998 part-session, I asked the Commission (Oral Question H-0329/98) whether the decision of the Flemish Regional Government to uphold the granting by the Flemish Brabant Permanent Committee of an environmental permit for the construction of a waste incinerator at Drogenbos did not violate several European environmental directives. The Commission replied in substance that a similar complaint had already been submitted and that, if examination of the case confirmed a breach of Community law, the Commission would be in a position to decide whether it would be appropriate to initiate an infringement procedure.

Having received no further information, I tabled another question to the Commission (E-3326/98) asking if the Commission could state whether its investigations had confirmed an infringement and, if so, whether a decision to initiate the infringement procedure had been taken and what the grounds for such a decision were.

Since I have still not received either a positive or a negative reply, I would now ask the Commission to make known its decision regarding the initiation of the infringement procedure.

The Commission's decision is all the more urgent since the Flemish Region has just issued the permit for the construction of the incinerator.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Following the examination of the complaints about the incinerator referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission has decided to start infringement proceedings against Belgium pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty on account of a presumed infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/98

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

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Subsidy for nature conservation areas in the Netherlands

According to the Dutch media (De Telegraaf of 28 July 1998) the Netherlands failed to take up substantial EU subsidies because the Commission was not notified in good time of nature conservation areas.

Can the Commission confirm this?

Can the Commission indicate what projects were submitted by the Netherlands and for which ones subsidies were granted?

Can the Commission state how much money other Member States have received for their nature conservation areas, and what conservation areas are involved?

Is it true that the Commission issued a warning in April 1998 to countries which were slow in submitting projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Netherlands sent two projects to the Commission under Life-Nature in 1998. The "Nieuwkoopse Plassen" project was accepted and received joint financing of ECU 895 222. The "Fochteloërveen peat bog" project was declared ineligible. The site where the activities were to take place had not been applied for by the Member State under the Community "Nature" Directive.

Each year the Commission publishes a list, per Member State, of the amounts allotted to and the summaries of each of the projects that have been jointly financed under Life-Nature. The Commission will send the documents for 1992-97 direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament. The 1998 brochure will only be available from October 1998.

It is quite true that the Commission has regularly reminded the Member States that, in order to be eligible for joint financing under Life-Nature, the sites referred to should have been applied for under the "Birds"(1) or "Habitats"(2) directives.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3950/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Tax discrimination in Spain

Computer controlled machine tools and flexible processing systems for training purposes supplied by an Austrian manufacturer are subject to the full rate of VAT of 16 % while similar products supplied by a domestic manufacturer are subject to a preferential rate of 4 % levied by the Tax authorities of an Autonomous Region in Spain. The Commission department responsible rejected a complaint based on the provisions governing the single market.

What rate of tax are domestic products of this type subject to in the region concerned?

In view of the explanations contained in the letter of 24 July 1998 and of the current state of affairs regarding this matter, can the Commission explain how the different taxation of suppliers of similar products which are in direct competition with each other can be said to be in keeping with the provisions governing the single market and, in particular, with the sixth VAT Directive?

Does the Commission intend to take specific measures to deal with the abovementioned case of discrimination in order to ensure equal taxation as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Under the terms of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC)(1), a delivery of electronic equipment for school use, whether it was from inside Spain or from another part of the Community, would be subject to the standard rate of 16 % in Spain.

The Austrian firm which raised this issue with the Honourable Member had previously made an identical complaint to the Commission. The Commission contacted the Spanish authorities, which carried out the necessary checks; the latter revealed no fraud.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE)and Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Expiry of the ECSC Treaty and coal aid

23 July 2002 is the date upon which the ECSC Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC(1) (governing the authorisation of coal aid) will expire. In view of the urgent need for a new aid scheme to be adopted, the Council must already have drawn up a timetable for negotiations on this matter and have set priorities.

What is the Council's timetable for dealing with this matter?

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council is aware of the very tight schedule in the run-up to expiry of the ECSC Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC and will give suitable priority to the proposal for a Council Regulation on State aid to the coal industry adopted by the Commission on 25 July 2001 and presented to the Council on 30 July 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/01

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Food and Veterinary Office Annual Report

In the section on animal welfare in its Annual Report for 2000, the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office states that in two Member States the shortcomings in poultry stunning and in its supervision were of such severity that infringement proceedings have been recommended, and in one Member State infringement proceedings have been recommended for failure to transpose Community legislation on welfare at slaughter. Which are the Member States being referred to?

The Annual Report also states that stunning equipment for mammals did not conform to all legislative requirements in several Member States, e.g. ineffective and inadequate stunning equipment, poor maintenance and lack of availability of a back-up stunning device. Which are the Member States being referred to?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The two Member States referred to in the Food and Veterinary Office annual report where severe shortcomings in poultry stunning and its supervision were found, were Greece (mission reference 1133/2000) and Portugal (mission reference 1158/2000).

The Member State who failed to transpose fully Community legislation on welfare at slaughter in all Länder, was Austria (mission reference 1009/2000). However, the requirements with regard to the veterinary supervision of animal welfare at the time of slaughter were in general met.

The Member States in which stunning equipment for mammals did not conform to all legislative requirements were Portugal (mission reference 1922/1999) and Greece (mission reference 1060/2000).

Reports of these specific missions have been transmitted to the Parliament and can also be consulted on the Health and Consumer Protection DG web site at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/index_en.html.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2411/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(1 August 2002)

Subject: US undermining of the position of the International Criminal Court in The Hague

The US has officially approached individual Member States of the EU, including the Netherlands, seeking the conclusion of an agreement that would preclude the criminal prosecution of US citizens.

Does the Council agree with me that Member States should not take individual positions on this issue but as has been the case in the past should speak with one voice and reject any undermining of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court?

Is the Council prepared to take all the coordinated measures required to beat off this American attack?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

The Council asks the Honourable Member to refer to the reply which it gave to Written Question No E-1795/02 put by Mr Erik Meijer, and in particular to paragraphs 6 and 7 of that reply, which refer to the conclusions adopted by the Council at its meeting on 30 September 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Waste water discharges contrary to environmental regulations

Only 67 % of firms in the Netherlands comply with environmental regulations on waste water discharges. That is the conclusion reached by the Legal Compliance Expertise Centre of the Ministry of Justice following a sample survey of 300 discharge points in industry, within the waste treatment sector and at storage, transshipment and port reception facilities (Government Gazette, 31 October 2002).

According to the National Waterways and Highways Agency, which commissioned the survey, one explanation for this is the fact that the financial drawbacks of contravening the rules (fines) are simply much less onerous than the cost of complying with them, which is higher.

It is also conspicuous that the proportion of transgressors is much higher among firms with a certified environmental safeguards system (63 %) than among those without such a system (24 %). In addition, larger firms slip up more often than smaller firms.

Does the Commission not agree that this situation is extremely disquieting in terms of the quality of (surface) water in the Netherlands?

What action is the Commission contemplating in order to bring about an improvement in the compliance regime in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for bringing this subject to its attention.

The Commission has not had a chance to study the report referred to in the question but will ensure that a copy is obtained in the near future.

The Commission will then take all actions that may prove necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3649/02

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Training and certification of railway staff

Under the proposal for the amendment of Directive 95/18/EC and Directive 2001/14/EC(1), the Commission stipulates, in Article 12(2), first subparagraph, that Member States should be responsible for the training of train drivers and other train staff.

That article is open to different interpretations. What interpretation does the Commission place on it?

Are public railway undertakings required to provide training for staff, including non-in-house staff?

Are public railway undertakings only required to ensure training for staff, including non-in-house staff, if the Member State instructs the railway undertakings to do so?

If the Member State instructs no other institution to provide training, are public railway undertakings then effectively required to guarantee training for staff other than in-house staff?

(1) COM(2002) 21 final OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p. 332.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

Training of train staff is in most Member States carried out by the railway undertakings and/or infrastructure managers themselves. New entrants and railway undertakings from other Member States that want to exploit the market for rail transport services have in reality very small possibilities to organise this training by their own means. The purpose of Article 12 of the proposed Directive is to oblige Member States to ensure that necessary training of train staff is available to all railway undertakings that seek access to the network in question.

Once the Directive is adopted it has to be implemented in all Member States. The instruments for the implementation have to be chosen by the Member States and may vary depending on the degree in which the rail transport market is open and the availability of alternatives for training. The objectives of the Article must be met and in the case referred to by the Honourable Member the training schools of the state operator must be opened to the staff of other railway undertakings as described in the article if the services are not available on the market.