ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0206/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Money for biological and genetic engineering

1. What has been the level of appropriations set aside and/or spent annually by the Commission since 1982 on biological and genetic engineering?

2. From what programmes and budget lines have these appropriations been taken?

3. How much funding went directly and indirectly to industry and to research?

4. What conditions were imposed on this money?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1998)

1. and 2. In managing its research programmes, the Commission does not keep separate accounts on the use of appropriations for biotechnology and genetic technology. Programmes as diverse as Biotech, Biomed, Fair and Inco may, where necessary, make use of genetic technology to assist research into health, agriculture and development aid.

It is the biotechnology programme which depends most directly on progress in genetics. It must be emphasised that this programme (like its predecessors) does not necessarily involve the use of genetic engineering; indeed, most projects manage without it. The budgets have been as follows:

>TABLE>

3. Research and industry go hand in hand when it comes to biotechnology, as the traditional distinctions between basic and applied science no longer apply. For one thing, the bio-industry describes its expectations from Community biotechnology research as a need to update basic knowledge. In addition, it is university research in this field which gives rise to the majority of rapidly growing innovative businesses, particularly in the technologies of diagnostics and medicines.

As for actual contractual participation by industry, the breakdown is as follows:

>TABLE>

It should be noted that contractual participation by industry is channelled through joint research consortia including public and private organisations, with provision of 50% industrial co-financing to support the push to attain the programme's objective.

4. The conditions applying to such funding are set out in the information dossiers distributed for the biotechnology programme. They can be summed up as follows:

- preliminary conditions of eligibility described in the form of project selection criteria;

- conditions governing the use of appropriations, the use of research results, the rights and obligations of the parties vis-à-vis each other, the Commission and third parties (standard contract provisions);

- an obligation for all the programme's research contracts (Annex II to Council Decision 94/912/EC of 15 December 1994 adopting a specific programme of research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of biotechnology (1994 to 1998) ((OJ L 361, 31.12.1994.))) to contribute to the dissemination and optimisation of results, to stimulate the technological role of SMEs, to demonstrate the techno-economic feasibility of new products and processes likely to contribute to the Community's objectives, and to encourage evaluation of the impact of biotechnology on ethics, legislation and social affairs ('ELSA'), public perception and socio-economic activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Consultation with local and regional partners in east and south-east England regarding structural fund reform

Could the Commission list the contacts it has made with and the representations it has received from local and regional agencies and social partners regarding reform of the structural funds from eastern and south-eastern regions of England (outside London), since and at the time of the Cohesion Forum in April 1997? What further consultations does the Commission plan in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1998)

The bodies in Eastern and South East England from which the Commission has received representations on the reform of the structural funds are Kent County Council, Dover District Council, Isle of Wight Council, Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the English Regional Associations (which include the standing conference of East Anglian local authorities (Sceala) and South East regional planning).

The Commission has also received a paper from Sceala setting out its response to 'Agenda 2000' ((COM(97) 2000 final. )). Sceala covers the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk and the seven training and enterprise councils of the Eastern region.

The Commission has no plans for further formal consultation, although regular informal contact is maintained with the regional offices in Brussels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Tinned sardines in agreements with third countries

Can the Commission provide information on the undertakings accepted with regard to imports of tinned sardines under EU agreements with third countries, indicating the individual quantities by country of origin?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0907/98, E-0908/98, E-0909/98, E-0910/98, E-0911/98, E-0912/98, E-0913/98, E-0914/98 and E-0915/98 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0149/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Telecoms liberalization (infringement proceedings)

On 6 November 1997, the Commission announced that it had initiated infringement proceedings against certain Member States, having identified over 20 cases where Member States had failed to implement elements of European directives which are essential for a truly liberalized market in telecoms. It was the Commission's stated intention at the time to speed up the transposition of relevant directives into national law before the deadline of 1 January 1998 for the establishment of a fully-liberalized telecoms market in the EU.

Is the Commission confident that these measures will lead to early remedial action, and what evidence is there to support this?

As of 1 January 1998, in how many cases has the necessary legislation not been adopted by Member States; which Member States and which pieces of legislation are involved?

What timescale does the Commission currently envisage for the completion of transposition into national law of all the requisite measures?

What measures does the Commission have in place for the provision of public information on these matters?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

On 21 November 1997 and 2 December 1997, the Commission sent letters of formal notice to seven Member States regarding twenty cases of non-transposition or incorrect transposition of the Community telecommunications directives. This initiative has had significant results in that, in the meantime, fourteen out of these cases appear to have been dealt with satisfactorily by the Member States concerned.

As for the situation on 1 January 1998, the Commission adopted on 18 February 1998 a report on the state of implementation of the Community telecommunications directives which will soon be transmitted to the Parliament.

The Commission's assessment is that, except in a small number of cases, transposition has been completed. Where there are delays, drafts awaiting adoption will in general ensure transposition. As regards the application of the rules put in place in the Member States, the Commission's initial conclusion is that, despite a number of complaints, there is widespread evidence both that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure market entry, and that regulators are taking action to ensure compliance with the regulatory framework. However, if delays or incomplete transposition persist in certain Member States, the Commission will have to open new infringement proceedings.

The Commission intends to issue further communications on the state of implementation, in which the focus will shift away from transposition towards effective application and fuller reporting of the opening of national markets, on the basis of a wider range of indicators and more extensive data from the national regulatory authorities. These reports will continue to be made available on the Internet for the broader public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0769/98 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Premix

Alcopops were the subject of much discussion a few months ago. Although things have quietened down now, this is still a serious issue.

What has been done, in the meantime, to introduce legislation banning any measures that encourage young people to drink alcohol?

A hypermarket chain has banned sales of such products in its shops after consulting an 'ethics committee'.

Do we need to wait for the business world to introduce ethical standards?

What does the Commission intend to do as a matter of urgency to combat this serious problem?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the health and social impact that new types of drinks such as spirit mixers may have, especially on the young.

The Commission is at present working on a voluntary code of practice covering all alcoholic beverages in order to tackle the issue of underage drinking. Accompanying measures in the field of public awareness, education and training should contribute to a reduction in underage drinking.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1154/98 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Council. European Agency for the Oceans



Official Journal C 323 , 21/10/1998 P. 0115



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Council (28 April 1998) Subject: European Agency for the Oceans With reference to the International Year of the Oceans and the organization of an exhibition on the subject of oceans (Expo '98), does the Council not consider that the establishment of a European Agency for the Oceans should be encourages? What does the Council think of the merits of such a project? Answer (6 July 1998) To date the Council has received no proposal on the subject from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0872/98 by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Famine relief in West Papua

Is the Council aware of reports from human rights organizations that churches in West Papua (Irian Jaya) have been denied access by the Indonesian military to relief supplies for areas in the Puncak Jaya and Jawijaj districts of West Papua despite the ongoing famine in this region?

Has the Council received details of this situation, and what action does it propose to take?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The Council has no information on the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Presidency will suggest to raise the issue at a forthcoming meeting of the Asia/Oceania experts working group and try to establish a line of action in close liaison with humanitarian relief agencies working on the ground in Irian Jaya.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/98 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: Book price agreements and Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty

The Commission recently set up a procedure to put an end to cross-border fixed book prices between Germany and Austria. The Commission maintains that such price agreements are a violation of European competition law.

On 30 June 1997 the Cultural Affairs Council requested the Commission to carry out a study, or to have a study carried out, into the relationship between the cultural affairs paragraph in the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Rome. To my surprise the Commission has only recently issued the call for tenders.

1. Does the Council agree that the decision-making process should take into account not only the economic arguments but also cultural aspects?

2. Does the Council think it right that before waiting for the results of the study the Commission has adopted procedures, based solely on economic criteria, aimed at putting an end to cross-border fixed book prices?

3. If not, is the Council prepared to request the Commission to stop the procedure against Germany and Austria until the results of the study are known?

Answer (16-17 June 1998)

1. In its Decision of 22 September 1997 ((OJ C 305, 7.10.1997, p. 2. )) on cross-border fixed book prices in European linguistic areas referred to by the Honourable Member, the Council expressly recognized 'the dual character of books as the bearers of cultural values and as merchandise' while 'strongly emphasizing the importance of a balanced assessment of the cultural and economic aspects of books'.

2. In that Decision, the Council,

noting that 'the Commission of the European Communities has to date felt obliged to consider some of the cross-border fixed price systems submitted to it as being incompatible with Article 85(1) or Article 30 of the Treaty and has declared that in those cases the evidence produced in support of exemption within the meaning of Article 85(3) was not sufficient';

and that 'the inclusion in the Treaty of Article 128(4)' * which provides that the Council shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty * 'has created a new situation, the consequences of which must be clarified with respect to the application of Community competition rules to cross-border fixed book prices';

'asks the Commission to study the significance of Article 128(4) for the implementation of those Articles of the Treaty that may concern cross-border fixed book prices, and to indicate, if appropriate, the ways to enable fixed book-price regulations/agreements within the homogeneous linguistic areas to be applied.'

3. The Council looks forward with the keenest anticipation to examining the outcome of the discussions conducted by the Commission in accordance with the above Decision.

4. However, it should be noted that it is not for the Council to approach the Commission with regard to proceedings taken by it in application of the relevant provisions on competition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/98 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Rules on organic farming

The USA is planning to introduce new rules for organic farming which allow irradiation, genetic engineering, factory farming methods etc. which are not normally allowed in Europe in organic production.

What does the Commission intend to do to avoid problems in the WTO for those Member States, including Sweden, which wish to maintain stringent standards for the classification of products as organic?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 april 1998)

The Commission will submit, under the arrangements provided under the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on technical barriers to trade, comments to the United States on their proposed regulation for organic farming.

The Community has well developed rules for the production and labelling of organic products. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991. )), provides in Article 11 for a regime of equivalence for products imported from third countries. This regime is managed either by the Commission (Article 11.1) or, as is currently the case for products from the United States, by the Member States (Article 11.6). The Community requirements provide that before organic products are imported into the Community from a third country, it should be adequately demonstrated that the products were produced in accordance with production standards and inspection arrangements equivalent to those applied to Community production. Similarly, the draft United States regulations on organic farming include provision for equivalence with regard to imports of organic products from other countries into the United States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/98 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Outstanding appropriations (RAL) in various Community programmes

Could the Commission indicate the amount of appropriations outstanding (RAL) on 31 December 1997, stating whether the appropriations were committed in 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993 or earlier, for the programmes or budgetary headings shown below?

1. Framework research programme,

2. PHARE,

3. TACIS,

4. MEDA,

5. B7-30 * Cooperation with the Asian developing countries, and

6. B7-31 * Cooperation with the Latin American developing countries.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (26 May 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Semi-preserves of salted anchovies and anchovies in oil in agreements with third countries

Can the Commission provide information on the undertakings accepted with regard to imports of salted anchovies and anchovies in oil under EU agreements with third countries, indicating the individual quantities by country of origin?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0907/98, E-0908/98, E-0909/98, E-0910/98, E-0911/98, E-0912/98, E-0913/98, E-0914/98 and E-0915/98 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: The Community initiative, Interreg, and tourism

Will the Commission give the total amount allocated, per Member State, in the 1994-1999 financial programming period to actions and projects specifically involving tourism within the framework of the Community initiative, Interreg II?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

Of the three strands of the Interreg II Community Initiative, only Interreg IIA (development of border areas and cross-border cooperation) covers significant measures in the field of tourism. As is the case for the Structural Funds in general, Interreg II is implemented in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Accordingly, the Commission has approved 59 multiannual operational programmes under Interreg IIA, while the selection and approval of the projects is the responsibility of the national, regional or local authorities. Moreover, in accordance with the spirit of genuine cross-border cooperation, operational programmes concerned with internal borders do not normally allocate appropriations by Member State.

Consequently, only overall and approximate figures can be given for Community financial assistance from the 59 operational programmes for measures in the field of tourism. On the basis of current programming, this can be estimated at ECU 300 million, or about 12% of total Community funding for Interreg IIA. For example, the Spain/Portugal operational programme devotes about ECU 55 million (10% of the Community appropriations for this programme) to measures concerning tourism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/98 by Lis Jensen (I-EDN) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Information budget of the Commission's Copenhagen office

Will the Commission state how much money its office in Denmark has earmarked for information purposes in 1998 and what proportion of that amount will be used before 28 May 1998?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

For general information activities in 1998 the Commission representation in Denmark has been allocated ECU 1 248 000 in commitment appropriations on budget line B3-300 (general information and communication work concerning the European Union) and ECU 20 000 in commitment appropriations on budget line B3-301 (information outlets).

The general information activities of the representation, such as the publishing of a monthly magazine, newsletters, fact sheets and organisation of conferences and seminars, take place throughout the year, both before and after the referendum date.

On budget line B3-306 (information programme for European citizens 'PRINCE' - information activities in connection with specific policies) ECU 295 000 in commitment appropriations has been allocated for information by the Representation in Denmark on the Treaty of Amsterdam. At this stage it is difficult to determine what proportion will be spent before and after May 28. Theses activities fall under the requirement of the Commission to provide information for the general public (such as a factual guide on the Treaty of Amsterdam) on important issues about the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/98 by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the EU's development programmes

In the European Union's decision-making on development aid projects, greater account should be taken of the priorities and needs of the recipient country. In the EDF process the Commission and the Member States are represented, whereas the target countries for the project are not even given the opportunity to comment in all cases. However, in the new operational guidelines for EDF projects, the government of the target country is made responsible for project leadership. This is a perfectly reasonable principle, but is impossible to put into practice unless the recipient country's own needs and priorities guide the selection of development projects.

In order to ensure that the target countries' own priorities are taken into account, would it be possible to delegate responsibility for approval of projects in the context of the EDF process to a body made up of EU Member States' representatives and Commission representatives operating in the target country?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1998)

The provisions of the fourth Lomé Convention (the principles and guidelines set out in Article 221 and Article 222, and the implementing procedures set out in Articles 285-289) make clear the pivotal role of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States receiving Community aid in the decision-making process for the European Development Fund.

Those provisions permit the recipient countries' priorities and needs to be fully taken into account in projects and programmes financed.

Project identification and preparation, then, are the responsibility of the ACP State (Article 285).

Appraisal is conducted jointly by the ACP State and the Community, represented on the spot by the Head of the Commission Delegation (Article 287).

The financing proposal is drawn up by the Head of Delegation in close collaboration with the ACP State, and finalised by the Commission. The ACP State receives a copy and may request changes to it (Article 288).

Where the financing proposal is not adopted by the Community, the ACP State may request that it be referred either to the ACP-EC Development Finance Cooperation Committee or to the Community's decision-making body (Article 289).