ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0235/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Illegal Belgian visas and passports

Attention needs to be drawn in the context of the European Union's third pillar (justice and home affairs) to fraud being perpetrated with Belgian visas and passports. Not least because a temporary or permanent residence permit for the Belgian Federation also gives access to all the Schengen countries. These residence permits are worth their weight in gold to criminals and make the whole area of migration enormously vulnerable to corruption.

There were reports last year of trade in diplomatic cards in the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry and of large-scale visa fraud in the Belgian Embassy in Sofia. In late 1997 one official at the Foreign Affairs Ministry admitted to having sold about 300 special cards to Russians. The same official was also responsible for issuing dozens of special cards to Embassy domestic staff, in particular young Filipino women, who were often exploited and some of whom gravitated to prostitution.

In 1996 the First Secretary at the Belgian Embassy in Sofia lodged a civil-law complaint alleging illegal activities against the Ambassador and his staff. She had established that visas and passports were frequently issued in return for payment. The Embassy was even said to have set up a carrousel arrangement involving fake invitations from Belgian firms. In April 2000, two magistrates visited Sofia and established that illegal visas had in fact continued to be issued by the Belgian Embassy for several years.

Has the Council having regard to the facts cited above made representations to the Belgian Federation with a view to applying essential preventive measures to its visa and passport policy, such as a rotation system for sensitive duties, double monitoring and screening of officials?

If so, when did the Council submit that request to the Belgian Federation?

If not, why has the Council still not urged essential preventive measures for the Belgian Federation's visa and passport policy, having regard to its importance to the European Union's third pillar and the Schengen countries' policy? Will the Council still urge that such measures be adopted?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0234/01 and E-0235/01

(14 May 2001)

The Council regards the fight against document fraud as an important matter. This is why, for a long time now, experts have met in Council working parties to exchange information and experience and to consider initiatives and proposals on the subject.

However, the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerns a matter that has to be settled by the relevant Belgian authorities.

The Council does not usually call on a Member State of the Union to give an explanation concerning a matter over which the Member State itself has jurisdiction.

If a Member State's acts or omissions were to affect the operation of Community visa regulations it would be for the Commission to give the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Tariff levels

1. Will the Commission state the weighted average tariff level for non-agricultural imports in the European Union, Japan and the United States for the last available year?

2. Will it also estimate the equivalent for each year prior to major international trade liberalisation agreements since the formation of the Communities?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

1. The weighted average tariffs for non-agricultural products in 1998 were as follows:

>TABLE>

2. The information required to answer the second part of the question is not available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense (NMD) shield. The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the initiative is a threat to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that the NMD system is incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race. If the US Administration really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK government. One part of the shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy think of the National Missile Defence system?

2. Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy believe that the NMD system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972? If so, on what grounds?

3. Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy share the fears of Robin Cook, Britain's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of a new arms race if the United States develops the missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy reject Mr Cook's views?

4. In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy support the siting of part of the missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. Nevertheless at the 2000 Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the European Union reaffirmed the importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the pillars of strategic stability. Furthermore the EU stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved.

The subject of National Missile Defense (NMD) has however been raised on several occasions during discussions between M. Javier SOLANA, the Secretary General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and his US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has echoed the views expressed by a number of Member States on the importance of maintaining global stability through an agreed security framework. He has also underlined the need for full and transparent consultations between the US and its European allies on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Droit de suite

Is the proposal for a directive on Droit de Suite compatible with Article 295 of the EC Treaty as amended?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Court of Justice confirmed in Opinion 1/94(1) that in the field of intellectual property the Community has internal competence to harmonise national laws pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 (ex Articles 100 and 100a) of the EC Treaty. It has also ruled, under consistent case law, that Article 295 cannot be interpreted as reserving to the national legislature, in relation to industrial and commercial property, the power to adopt measures which would adversely affect the principle of the free movement of goods within the common market. The Court has suggested the idea of approximating national legislation in this field in the future(2).

The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(3) seeks to introduce a harmonised legal framework for resale rights in order to ensure that the market in modern and contemporary works of art operates properly within the Community.

It thus complies with the objectives stated in Articles 94 and 95 concerning the harmonisation of laws and is compatible with Article 295 (ex Article 222) of the EC Treaty.

(1) Opinion 1/94 of 15 November 1994 (Reports of Cases 1994, p. I-5267).

(2) Commission v. United Kingdom, C-30/90 (Reports of Cases 1992, p. I-829); Spain v. Council, C-350/92 (Reports of Cases 1995, p. I-1985).

(3) OJ C 178, 21.6.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: European Packaging Directive

Following the recent ruling in the British High Court that a plastic flowerpot is deemed to be packaging and therefore falls under the European Packaging Directive, can the Commission confirm that the definition of packaging falls within the powers and responsibilities of the Member States?

Does it agree that different definitions adopted by different Member States are likely to cause confusion within the single market?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The definition of packaging is included in the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(1). Since then, the Directive has been implemented into national laws according to the procedure specified in the Directive, including the transposition of the definitions of packaging.

Accordingly, the interpretation of this definition, as applied at national level, falls within the powers and responsibilities of the Member States, taking into account the relevant Community jurisprudence on the subject.

The Commission may neither interfere with the ruling of national courts nor provide a definitive interpretation of the Community legislation. The definition of packaging, as stated in the Directive 94/62/EC, may only be determined ultimately by the Court of Justice.

However, the Commission recognises that the definition of packaging as stated in the Council Directive 94/62/EC has proven difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots, and that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could cause confusion within the single market. For that reason, the Commission has been and is working on this issue with the support of all the different stakeholders of the packaging chain (including Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental organizations and consumers) in order to assess how best to interpret this definition.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Funding for Bulgaria

What progress has been made towards complying with the request made by the European Parliament over five months ago in its resolution of 4 October 2000 on Bulgaria's application for membership of the EU (A5-0241/2000): to provide Parliament with a detailed and comprehensive breakdown of all recent funding to Bulgaria at the earliest possible opportunity, along with an assessment of the contribution of its assistance programmes to the achievement of substantive economic and administrative progress in Bulgaria?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a detailed description of the programming framework and the projects supported in Bulgaria under the

Phare programme since 1999 and under the Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) and the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) programmes since their inception in 2000.

There is a well-established system of monitoring and evaluation in place to assess the impact of ongoing and completed projects supported by Community funds. Reports prepared by independent evaluators are used to address and remedy weaknesses in project implementation and draw general lessons that can then be applied when programming new assistance. Judging by these reports, the effectiveness with which Bulgaria uses Community assistance is uneven. This often reflects weaknesses in the project implementation capacity of Bulgarian institutions. The Commission has responded to these weaknesses by more carefully designing, and attaching stricter conditions to, newly programmed assistance.

When assessing the effectiveness of Community assistance to Bulgaria's pre-accession preparations, it is difficult to distinguish between the contribution of Community-supported initiatives and those sponsored by the complementary programmes provided by the international financial institutions and bilateral agencies.

However, the Commission is encouraged by the broad direction of reform in Bulgaria. The authorities have succeeded in stabilising the macroeconomic situation, adopting much of the Community acquis and starting to address sensitive social issues. Bulgaria has so far made good progress in the accession negotiations. On the other hand, Bulgaria does not yet have a functioning market economy, the quality of public administration (particularly the judiciary) and implementation of the acquis is uneven, and corruption remains a problem. These are the key issues on which Community assistance will focus in the immediate future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/01

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Organisational and restructuring problems of the Finmeccanica group

The industrial restructuring plans for the Finmeccanica group have aroused serious concerns among the personnel of the group and its associates, Alenia Aerospazio, Alenia Difesa and Alenia Marconi Systems, an Italo-British joint venture for military electronics run by a British managing director.

The group has announced losses equivalent to ITL 230 billion in its Italian operation alone, in a situation that values production at 1 577 billion and the acquisition of new orders at 1 168 billion. It has produced a restructuring plan that would seriously affect Italian employment, with the redundancy of 400 employees, mainly in the factories at Gugliano and Fusaro.

Can the Commission confirm whether there is a dominant position in the British representative on the group's internal management, which is otherwise established on the basis of parity?

Can it also carry out an investigation of the asset-stripping plan in the research and production sectors of Alenia Marconi Systems, to prevent the creation of a new subsidiary having an adverse effect on Italian employment in the industry concerned?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

As regards the structure of control of the undertakings mentioned, the Commission found in its decision of 28 August 1998 in case M.1258 GEC Marconi/Alenia(1) that GEC-Marconi and Finmeccanica S.p.A. (through its wholly owned subsidiary, Alenia Systems S.p.A.) had each joint control over Alenia Marconi Systems within the meaning of Article 3(1)b of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(2) (Merger Regulation).

The Commission believes that GEC Marconi's rights in Alenia Marconi Systems have been transferred to BAe Systems as a result of the subsequent acquisition of GEC Marconi by BAe.

The Commission attaches the greatest importance to the social consequences of corporate restructuring but, apart from this assessment strictly limited to the Commission's mandate under the Merger Regulation, the Commission has no information concerning the question raised and has no other legal base to undertake investigations concerning individual restructuring operations, unless the restructuring is financed by State aid.

(1) OJ C 306, 6.10.1998.

(2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989 as amended by OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 July 2001)

Subject: Compliance with Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae

The Commission says that it does not see, from the information supplied by the Honourable Member, in how far the promotional measures described could distort competition between hospitals and suppliers (P-1229/01)(1). Yet the Belgian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Public Health and the Environment, Magda Aelvoet, has said in answer to a request for clarification from Senator Sabine de Bethune that the sales promotion campaigns by infant formulae manufacturers violate the relevant decree (Thursday, 22 March).

Infant formulae manufacturers are distributing free samples of infant formulae in Belgian maternity wards as a way of advertising these products. This approach is not only illegal. It also contravenes the EC Treaty (by distorting competition) and is contrary to the key objective of the WHO Code, namely that breastfeeding should be encouraged in the interests of health. Moreover, it is clear that the national authorities, in this case the Belgian Federation, are failing to tackle the problem.

Will the Commission take action in response to the national authorities' failure to ensure that the legislation in force is respected by all interested parties in the Belgian Federation? If so, what will the Commission do to ensure that manufacturers of infant formulae cease to distribute free samples in Belgian maternity wards

in order to advertise these products? If not, on what grounds does the Commission consider the free distribution of infant formulae by manufacturers and vendors in maternity clinics to be in accordance with Directive 91/321/EEC(2) on infant formulae?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 227.

(2) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question P-1229/01(1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 227.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/01

by Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Regulation of alcohol consumption on various forms of transport, particularly aircraft

Drunkenness among passengers on various forms of transport is a relatively frequent occurrence. Such is the case on aircraft, where alcohol is served to passengers free of charge, with no restrictions on quantity.

Bearing in mind the inconvenience these kinds of situations cause for both passengers and crew, and the inadvisability, from the point of view of health, of consuming alcoholic beverages while travelling, especially on long plane journeys, will the Commission state whether it has given consideration to this issue with a view to regulating the consumption of alcoholic beverages on various forms of transport, and on aircraft in particular? If so, what conclusions has it reached?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2001)

The Commission has proposed to Parliament and Council to adopt common requirements on commercial operations by aeroplanes within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation(1). The proposal(2) concerned has been discussed by the Parliament, which adopted its position at first reading on 18 January 2001.

The requirements specify that air operators are responsible for the safety of the aeroplane and its occupants. With regard to the drunkenness of passengers, air operators are required to ensure no passenger is on board who is under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the safety of the aeroplane or its occupants is likely to be endangered. (Paragraph OPS 1115 of Annex III of the Regulation).

The Commission considers that, within the constraints of these safety requirements, operators are free to serve alcoholic drinks to their passengers if they so wish, whether against payment or whether by courtesy. The health considerations linked to the consumption of alcohol are of course a matter for the individual. The Commission has no intention to propose legal measures in respect of the consumption of alcoholic drinks on board.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/01

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

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Possible fraud in the use of ESF monies intended for training workshops run by the Confederation of Galician Businessmen

Serious irregularities in the management of Galician Confederation Businessmen, by its former President, António Ramilo, led to an as yet unexplained debt of ESP 1 000 million ( 6 010 121). Against this background, it has been ascertained that possibly fraudulent use was made of Community funds managed by the Confederation as subsidies from the Galician Government, intended to pay for training courses. These funds were used to pay the Confederation's own running costs. Between 1996 and 2000, the Confederation received ESP 3 569 million ( 21 450 122) from the Galician Government, largely comprising Community monies. What steps is the Commission taking vis-à-vis the Galician Government, which was responsible for managing the Community funding, to investigate the possibility that the former Confederation President's mismanagement may also have affected the ESF funded training courses?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the written reply it gave to his Oral Question H-0258/01 during question time at Parliament's April 2001 part-session(1).

On 4 April 2001 the Commission received information from Spain concerning funds which the Galician confederation of businessmen (Confederação de Emprésarios de Galiza - CEG) received from the Xunta de Galicia (Galician Government), and on checks carried out. However, Spain has yet to complete its report in order to allow any irregularities to be identified. Spain should shortly be able to forward to the Commission the conclusions of checks currently being carried out, which will allow it to take the appropriate measures.

No notification of irregularities relating to this case has as yet been received from Spain. However, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has indicated that on 29 March 2001 it opened an investigation to assist the Spanish authorities (Fiscalia especial para la represión de los delitos económicos relacionados con la corrupción).

(1) Written reply, 3.4.2001.