ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The EU ban on phtalates in toys

Please can you forward me a copy of a letter from James Bridges (Head of the EU's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment CSTEE) to the Commission, which stated that the Committee disagreed with the proposed ban and put forward the idea of migration limits as an alternative to the ban?

Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful if Professor Bridges could present his scientific findings on this issue to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission has already sent the requested correspondence to the chairman of the public health and environment committee of the Parliament.

As regards the possible presence of Professor Bridges before the environment committee, such a request will have to be addressed to him directly given the status of scientific committees' members as independent from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/00

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Agricultural subsidies paid to US farmers

Can the Commission state whether it has up-to-date information on the total amount of agricultural subsidies paid to farmers in the United States and whether recent increases in income aids to US farmers are in keeping with the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The United States' budget for agriculture is substantially greater than that for the Community's common agricultural policy ( 63 and 69 billion in 1999 and 2000, respectively). A significant portion of this budget, however, is spent on measures which are only of indirect benefit to american farmers, such as food, nutrition and consumer services, which accounted for 35 billion of the agricultural budget in 1999.

The primary means of support for farmers is in the form of direct payments under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) and the loan deficiency payment system, which bridges the gap between the market price and a pre-determined amount per tonne, known as the loan rate.

In 1999, United States federal payments to farmers, in direct form, amounted to 22,7 billion, through a combination of those pre-programmed payments under AMTA and the special emergency packages approved in 1998 (some of which were only paid out in 1999), and 1999. This was a considerable increase on previous years. This is the equivalent of 11 000 per farm and is double the average direct payment received by Community farmers.

Obviously, the Commission is concerned with the upward trend in recent years of United States federal expenditure on agriculture and is monitoring developments closely. However, in relation to the compatibility of United States measures with World trade organisation (WTO) rules, the United States has not yet notified its 1998 and 1999 measures on agriculture. Its last notification was for marketing year 1997. This notification showed that the total aggregate measurement of support (AMS) commitment level for the United States was $ 21 491 million, while its current AMS in that year was $ 6 238 million. In other words, the United States had substantial room for manoeuvre within its AMS ceiling. On the other hand, the total level of outlay on green box measures was $ 51 250 million, compared to outlays during the 1986-1988 reference period of $ 26 150 million. However, there is no WTO ceiling on outlays on green box measures.

The Commission will closely monitor future WTO notifications by the United States to ensure that agriculture related expenditure is correctly classified under WTO rules and that commitments are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0472/00

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Access to generic pharmaceuticals

The procedures for authorising the marketing of pharmaceuticals in certain Member States effectively prevent the registration of cheap generic products if the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the original product has withdrawn its licence for the product for commercial reasons and replace it with a substitute. This places the consumer in a particularly unfavourable position and is based on a questionable interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC(1) and, in particular, Article 4(8)(a)(iii).

This obstacle to the registration of generic pharmaceuticals is entirely contrary to the stated policy of the Commission set out in its communication on the internal market in the pharmaceutical sector (COM(98) 588), Parliament's position as set out in the Read Report (A4-0205/1999) and that of the Council as set out in its resolution of 18 May 1999, all of which call for better access for consumers to generic pharmaceuticals.

What specific action will the Commission take to end this obstacle to the availability of generic pharmaceuticals?

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that generic pharmaceuticals can be registered, even if the pharmaceutical company which manufactured the original product has withdrawn its licence in favour of a similar product for reasons which are not dictated by public health considerations?

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2000)

The availability of generic pharmaceuticals is one of the Commission's main priorities, as set out in various documents. The Commission is keen to implement this policy and is drafting recommendations based on various judgements of the Court of Justice which allow an interpretation more favourable to generic pharmaceuticals.

Following the judgements of 3 December 1998 in case C-368/96 and of 16 December 1999 in case C-94/98, even if the holder of a marketing authorisation for an original medicinal product withdraws that authorisation in favour of one for a medicinal product the formula of which contains the same active ingredients but different constituents although it still has the same therapeutic effect, a marketing authorisation may be granted for the generic medicinal product by referring to either formula.

Following these judgements and others concerning medicinal products, it is necessary to improve the information available on this subject. Supplementary information will be therefore be published in the notice to applicants for marketing authorisations as provided for in the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products(1). This is currently being prepared in cooperation with the Member States.

(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/00

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Refusal of private health insurers in the Netherlands to provide cover for frontier workers with compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ)

1. Is the Commission aware that frontier workers who work in the Netherlands but reside in another Member State and who have compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) pursuant to Regulation 1408/71(1) are rejected by Dutch private medical insurers because of their place of residence? This means that, although such frontier workers have compulsory AWBZ insurance in the Netherlands, they are required to take out supplementary private insurance in a different country, a combination which is expensive and impractical?

2. Does not this refusal violate the principle of free movement of workers?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Community law does not affect the Member States' responsibility for their social security systems. In the absence of any Community-level harmonisation in the field of social security, the laws of each Member State are free to stipulate the conditions for membership of a social insurance scheme, as well as the conditions of eligibility for social security benefits. These principles derive from the invariable practice of the Court of Justice.

Community law is therefore not in conflict with national schemes, such as that in the Netherlands, which do not provide for compulsory health insurance for workers whose income exceeds a certain level, and who must then take out private health insurance.

When exercising their powers, the Member States must respect Community law. In this connection, particular reference should be made to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community(1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(2), which seek to coordinate the Member States' social security systems(3).

However, the protection guaranteed under these Community regulations cannot be invoked in the present case because the persons concerned are not covered by a compulsory health insurance scheme provided for under the Netherlands' Sickness Insurance Funds Act (Ziekenfondswet).

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

(3) Last consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/00

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Procedure for concluding contracts under the Fifth framework programme for research

Now that the legal basis for the Fifth framework programme for research has been established, there is increasing criticism of the arrangements for contracts, in particular that they are padded out with unnecessary information and dealt with too slowly. These are circumstances which could be a disincentive to participation in the programme.

Is the Commission aware of such problems in concluding contracts under the framework programme for research?

What speedy and effective action does the Commission intend to take to simplify the procedure for concluding contracts?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of a number of complaints relating to the complexity of the procedures that were set up in 1999 for the Fifth Framework programme.

At the end of 1999 the Commissioner responsible for research established an interservice group to review procedures in the light of the experience of the first year of the programme. The aim of the group is to simplify a number of steps in the procedures, to the extent that this is possible under the existing rules which apply to the programme. The Commission would hope to take the first decisions to simplify internal procedures in March 2000. The review process will then continue in order to identify other measures that might be taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/00

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: MEDIA II: share-out of appropriations to participating countries

Since my Written Question E-0104/00(1) has regrettably failed to elicit a proper answer, will the Commission now say how MEDIA II funding has been allocated to participating countries since the programme was launched? What amounts have the different Member States received in absolute and percentage terms, and why have those amounts been granted?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 178.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

A table setting out the financial aid granted to each country in the first four years of the MEDIA II programme (1996 1999) has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of Parliament.

The table is accompanied by statistics relating to the share of the European market of each Member State and participating State in the MEDIA II programme. The statistics for the years 1998-1999 are provided by way of illustration and do not represent the final figures. Theyare expectedto be confirmed during the programme's final evaluation. These data show how the funds are allocated under the MEDIA II programme in relation to the actual situation on the market.

Example: The Netherlands represents 1,8 % of total investment in film production in Europe, and 2,7 % of the European market in terms of cinema box office receipts. Between 1996 and 1999, this Member State received 5,45 % of the funds granted under the MEDIA II programme, including 3,5 % of the funds allocated to producers and 4,9 % of the support given to distributors. The proportion of funds allocated to Netherlands professionals was therefore higher than their actual representation on the European market, in terms of both production and market share.

Under the MEDIA II programme, the Commission selects the beneficiaries in accordance with the arrangements set out in Council Decisions 95/564/EC of 22 December 1995 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (MEDIA II Training)(1) and 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II Development and distribution) (1996- 2000)(2).

The projects which are co-financed by the Commission are chosen on the basis of quality and European added value, irrespective of their nationality or country of origin. The Commission and the MEDIA Committee lay down guidelines setting out the various eligibility and selection criteria that apply.

Lastly, a final report on the evaluation of the MEDIA II programme will be sent to Parliament once the programme finishes at the end of the year 2000.

(1) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/00

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Intellectual property rights and human genetic material

The difficult ethical and legal issues raised by the recent granting by the EPO (European Patent Office) of a patent for human genetic material, have once again focused attention on the rules that currently govern the sensitive area of biotechnology.

Can the Commission say whether it considers that steps should be taken to ensure that the patent granted by the EPO to the Australian firm Stem Cell Sciences is withdrawn?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2000)

The Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal market stated to Parliament, in the course of a debate on 31 March 2000, that the Commission is aware of, and indeed shares, the concerns expressed about the granting of patent EP695351 to the University of Edinburgh for an invention in the area of stem cell technology made by that institution in collaboration with Stem Cell Sciences. He informed the Parliament that he has written to the European Patent Office requesting that the Office takes whatever action it considers necessary to correct the error that resulted in this patent being granted in its current form. In response, the European Patent Office agreed to establish an opposition division immediately to consider the oppositions that have already been filed against this patent. This opposition division, which was duly established on 29 March 2000, will issue a preliminary ruling as soon as possible. This could lead to the patent being either revoked, upheld in its present form or upheld in an amended form. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and, should the preliminary ruling not prove to be acceptable, will consider further action including formally opposing this patent itself.

Furthermore, following the Parliament resolution of 30 March 2000, the European group on ethics in sciences and new technologies is preparing an opinion on the ethical aspects of human embryonic stem cell research that will be published this summer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories

In Belgium, Royal Decree No 143 of 30 December 1982 stipulates that individuals who are not qualified to carry out medical tests may not occupy any kind of supervisory position in clinical biology laboratories.

On 17 December 1999, a complaint was referred to the Commission (COMP/37.7.754) contesting this law, which clearly has a bearing on freedom of establishment (Article 43 of the EC Treaty).

In 1987, following an appeal by the Commission, the Court of Justice ruled that the law was compatible with freedom of establishment as it was not deemed to be discriminatory. No attempt was made, however, to check that the law complied with the proportionality principle. (Judgment of 12 February 1987, Case 221/85, Commission v Belgium, ECR 1987, p. 719).

Nevertheless, as of 1995 (Judgment of 30 November 1995, Case C-55/94, Gebhard, ECR 1995, p. I-4186), the Court deems that any national measure even where applicable to EU residents without distinction, as is the Belgian law in question that is liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of, or access to, a profession by a national of another Member State, may be incompatible with Article 43 of the EC Treaty unless justified by compelling reasons of general interest and duly proportional.

In this context, how does the Commission intend to apply this new case law, which acknowledges the validity of the argument espoused by the institution up to eight years ago? Will the Commission now ascertain the proportionality of the provisions in question which the Court refused to do in 1987 in view of the fact that the rules on operating clinical biology laboratories in the various EU Member States are still so divergent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, there have been changes in the Court of Justice case law on the freedom of establishment.

Furthermore, there are a number of new elements in the appeal mentioned which were not present in the appeal which led to the Court judgment of 12 February 1987. The Commission is therefore carrying out a detailed examination of the Belgian legislation on medical analysis laboratories.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Programme for combating unemployment and exclusion from the labour market

EUR 230 million from the Social Fund appropriations allocated to the Second Community Support Framework for Greece which is now expiring had originally been approved for the programme to combat unemployment and the exclusion of vulnerable social groups, such as persons with special needs, rehabilitated drug addicts and immigrants. Owing to delays in the implementation of the programme for which this sum was intended, it was reduced by EUR 60 million which has been transferred to other programmes, although it is far from certain that this sum will in fact be taken up.

Given the urgent need to channel the funds in question to the vulnerable social groups for which they are intended, i.e. persons with special needs, rehabilitated drug addicts and immigrants, with a view to integrating these groups in the labour market, will the Commission say how it intends to address this matter and what is the reason for the delay (the excessively low take-up rate of appropriations) in implementing the programme so that it achieves to the intended objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

According to recent information provided by the Greek authorities, the programme take-up rate for the period 1994-1999 was approximately 55 % in terms of expenditure incurred. The total of programme credits had been committed by the end of December 1999 and it is expected that there will be 100 % credit absorption within the deadlines imposed by the financial regulations in force.

The very low take-up experienced in particular during the 1994-1997 period was mainly due to the programme's innovative approach, inadequate administrative and management structures, absence of appropriate implementing structures and the accreditation shortcomings.

In the meantime, significant progress has been achieved in comparison with the 1994-1997 period. The national accreditation agency was re-established and is at present functioning in a satisfactory way. There have also been improvements in programme monitoring.

However further action would still be required under the 3rd Community support framework for Greece 2000-2006, underpinning in particular the individualised, preventive and active approach to promote the integration of vulnerable social groups into the mainstream labour market. In this context it is important to strengthen or develop appropriate labour market structures and mechanisms as well as support, reception and care structures with a view to facilitating participation, integration and autonomy of those exposed to exclusion, including people with disabilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2023/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Delays in making payments from subprogramme 1.3 School Libraries under the second CSF Education and Basic Training programme

A year ago, the 60-member Book Selection Committee completed the list of books which it had selected for school library collections, a measure which is receiving funding from

the Education and Basic Training programme as part of the second Community Support Framework. Responsibility for obtaining library books lies with the implementing bodies designated by the Ministry of Education which are required to make payment to the publishers on receipt of the books.

Although the publishers have supplied the books, having had thousands of copies printed at great expense, they have not received payment, causing them major financial problems. Does the Commission know the reasons for the delays in payment and, if so, how does it intend to resolve the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

As the Commission was not aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member, it requested specific information from the Greek Ministry of Education, which is responsible for the implementation of the above-mentioned operational programme. According to the information received, the delay in payments to the publishers is mainly due to the fact that, in line with the contracts between the implementing bodies and the publishers, payments can be made only after completion of the delivery of the books and of relevant checks, which is a time-consuming procedure.

Advance payments of more than 50 % have already been transferred to the implementing bodies. Payments for checked deliveries of books are made normally according to the procedures in place. Some delays still persist at the level of a small number of implementing bodies. The Commission has been given assurances that every effort will be made by the Ministry of Education so that the problem be resolved as quickly as possible.