ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/96 by Carlo Secchi (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Action on generic medicinal products

What steps does the Commission intend to take with a view to enabling the producers of pharmaceutical products and the active ingredients for such products to make the necessary preparations prior to the expiry of the relevant patents or additional certificates for the protection of medicines?

How long does it intend to defer implementation of the decision which Parliament took on 16 April 1996 with a view to promoting the European generic medicines industry?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

The Commission's industrial policy has always encouraged free competition and transparency. Accordingly, the Commission's communication on the outlines of an industrial policy for the pharmaceutical sector ((COM(96) 718. )) recognised that efforts to improve transparency of the market would favour multi-source competition, which includes generic medicines. The problem is to provide the level of intellectual property protection necessary to encourage the development of new medicines for patients by bolstering innovative industry, while taking into account the interests of generic manufacturers, particularly vis a vis their competitors in third countries.

The Commission's communication was addressed to the Parliament and Council, so the Commission has naturally studied the contents of the parliamentary resolution of 16 April 1996 closely. The issue of allowing development work to take place before the expiry of the patent was considered carefully by the Council in 1992, when the supplementary protection certificate was introduced, and it was decided not to allow this to take place. Any change would need equally careful consideration, and should take account of economic and legislative developments throughout the world, not least of which is the forthcoming decision of the Court of justice on the interpretation of the current rules. In the light of the Court's decision and the Commission's forthcoming study on generic medicines, the Commission will put forward policies taking all the relevant factors into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2608/96 by Noël Mamère (V) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in certain civil and commercial matters

What is the situation concerning the territorial implementation of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968?

Is it true that this Convention does not yet apply to judicial relations between Portugal and Spain on the one hand and Belgium on the other?

Is true that this Convention does not yet apply to relations between Austria, Finland and Sweden on the one hand and the 12 other Member States of the European Union on the other?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this regrettable situation, which is likely to create distortions within the single market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)

The Brussels Convention, as last amended by the Convention of San Sebastian of 26 May 1989 concerning the accession of Spain and Portugal, is applicable in respect of relations between all Member States except Belgium. Denmark was the last Member State to ratify it, on 21 December 1995, with effect from 1 March 1996.

Under Article 4(2) of their Act of Accession to the EU Treaties, Austria, Finland and Sweden are obliged to accede to the Brussels Convention. An accession convention could be signed before the end of the year, after which the fifteen Member States will have to start the ratification procedures provided for by their constitutions. It is planned that such a convention will enter into force on the first day of the third month after the date on which two signatory States, one of which must be Austria, Sweden or Finland, have deposited their instruments of ratification.

Belgium has not yet ratified the 1989 accession convention. Given the link between the Brussels Convention and the functioning of the single market, the Commission has approached the Belgian authorities for information about progress in ratifying the accession convention. According to the information supplied, Belgium is pursuing the ratification procedure within its parliamentary institutions, but no exact date has been set for completion of the procedure.

The Brussels Convention is indissolubly linked to the EC Treaty. The Commission is proposing to remedy the situation criticized by the Honourable Member using the means provided for in the Treaty. Article 5 of the EC Treaty lays down that Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. In the circumstances, the Commission is proposing to give the Member State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3511/96 by Gianni Tamino (V), Daniel Cohn-Bendit (V) and Carlo Ripa di Meana (V) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Applicability of EU legislation on safety at the workplace to professional sport (by analogy with the 'Bosman case')

In mid-November 1996 the boxer Fabrizio De Chiara died of injuries sustained in an Italian professional middleweight title fight. Since the beginnings of professional boxing, in which it is not compulsory to wear a helmet and fights last up to 12 rounds, there have been over 500 proven cases in which death has resulted directly from a fight and numerous cases of injury. Amateur boxers have to wear a helmet during a match, which can last no longer than three three-minute rounds. These measures greatly reduce the risk of serious injury, although they do not eliminate it altogether. Other sports could be made safer for participants if more stringent rules were imposed, one example being the compulsory use of helmets in cycling.

As a result of the 'Bosman case' it has been established that Community law on the free movement of workers must also apply to professional sport, when it takes place on Union territory.

Can Community legislation on safety at the workplace likewise be considered applicable to professional sport?

In the light of Community legislation on safety at the workplace, which for boxers is the ring, for cyclists the road, and so on, would it not be necessary to lay down stricter rules whereby, as far as professional boxing was concerned, helmets would have to be worn and fights shortened considerably, cyclists would have to wear a helmet, and so forth?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1997)

The directives on the health and safety of workers at work apply to all sectors of activity, including educational and leisure activities, and to all workers as defined in Article 3 of framework Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work ((OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. )).

This means that sportsmen and sportswomen are covered by the directives only if they are effectively employed by (i.e. have an employment relationship with) an employer. They are not covered if they are self-employed.

In the case of sportsmen and sportswomen who are workers within the meaning of Directive 89/391/EEC, the employer is obliged to carry out a risk assessment and, on the basis of this assessment, to take any measures necessary for the protection of workers' safety and health, including the provision of personal protective equipment appropriate to the risks involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2720/96 by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Waste dump for special solid waste in the middle of the Val di Cecina

The Provincial Council of Pisa has decided to locate a waste tip for special solid waste in the middle of the Val di Cecina. No environmental impact assessment has been carried out in this area, where seams of Volterra rock-salt are to be found, and the special sludge to be disposed of contains harmful substances such as trivalent chrome and other heavy metals. The waste from the treated sludge is to be recovered and recycled in processing plants.

Will the Commission confirm that the rules governing the disposal of waste must be complied with?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 November 1996)

The Italian authorities have just informed the Commission that the Provincial Council of Pisa has, by Decision No 169 of 5 July 1996, revoked its Decision No 80 of 26 March 1996 concerning the waste disposal site in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Imports of wild-caught primates for research

When will the Commission ban the imports into the EU of wild-caught primates for research?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3098/96 and E-3100/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

It is legal to import primates into the Community. National authorities consider there are essential needs for primates in biomedical research, which cannot be met by the supply and use of animals already available in the Community.

In spite of the activities of the European primate resources network (Eupren), which was established in order to promote the breeding and ensure the availability of primates in the Community, the number of purpose-bred primates does not cover the needs of European research. Consequently, the need for their import still remains.

A European congress on the ethics of animal experimentation was held in Brussels on 17-18 December 1996. It is expected that one outcome of this congress will be a consensus position on the ethics of the issue supported by researchers and by those concerned with animal welfare.

The Commission is conscious of the importance of this issue which is regularly discussed in its meetings with national authorities on the implementation of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ No L 358, 18.12.1986. )) concerning the protection of laboratory animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Taxation of kerosine in Denmark and Sweden

1. Is the Council of Ministers aware that Denmark and Sweden have each taken unilateral action in taxing kerosine?

2. Can the Council say how much additional revenue Denmark and Sweden have collected, or expect to collect, as a result of introducing a tax on kerosine?

3. Is this unilateral national action setting a precedent for the EU? What is the reason for the Commission's view on this matter?

4. How does the Council view this unilateral action?

Joint reply to Written Questions E-2508 and E-2514/96 (13 February 1997)

1. The Council would point out that the exemption for kerosene for use as a fuel for the purpose of air navigation othan then private pleasure flying is provided for in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/81/EEC, adopted on 19 October 1992, on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils ((OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12. )).

No later than 31 December 1997, the Council will review this exemption, on the basis of a report by the Commission and taking account of the external costs entailed in such means of transport and the implications for the environment and will decide unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission, whether to abolish or modify that exemption.

2. The Council has no knowledge of the taxation of kerosene in Denmark and Sweden referred to in the Honourable Member's question. In any event, it is for the Commission to ensure correct implementation by the Member States of Community legislation, if it applies in the case in point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3605/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-322: Employment and growth for Europe

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading:

B5-322: Employment and growth for Europe

1. Can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-321: Operations relating to cooperatives

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading:

B5-321: Operations relating to cooperatives

1. Can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3613/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Financing of certain associations from the Community budget

Can the Commission provide full details of the amounts granted, under the 1995 budget (taking all relevant budget headings together) to the following French trade-union organisation:

- Fédération de l'Education Nationale (FEN) [National Education Federation]

at national level and to its branches in the regions and departments?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Financing of certain associations from the Community budget

Can the Commission provide full details of the amounts granted, under the 1995 budget (taking all relevant budget headings together) to the following French trade-union organisation:

- Confédération Générale des Cadres (CGC)

at national level and to its branches in the regions and departments?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3642/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B4-306: Awareness and subsidies

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B4-306: Awareness and subsidies?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3598/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4004: Transnational meetings of representatives from undertakings operating on a trans-frontier basis

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for the financial year 1995, and for each of the activities and beneficiaries (company representatives or company works-council representatives) granted subsidies under budget heading:

B3-4004: Transnational meetings of representatives from undertakings operating on a trans-frontier basis?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/96 by Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil

The EU's proposal for a reform of the COM provides for the introduction of a national quota system involving the payment of production aid on the basis of the number of trees rather than the volume of production, as is presently the case. This would increase the income from land and undermine the modernization process already under way in the sector. The reform should in fact be focused on measures to promote the upgrading of olive oil, in order to enhance its marketability, and a fair income for producers and should certainly not encourage the marketing of blends of olive oil and seed oil, which would adulterate the product to the detriment of quality. This would also conflict with the coming introduction by the EU of the protected designation of origin (PDO) system.

Would the Commission not agree that the reform of the COM should be used to upgrade the role of producers' associations, which are able to convey the real needs of olive oil producers, and to follow the path already taken by the Commission with the introduction of the PDO system, which means that olive oil quality standards are also based on geographical considerations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different possible options for the reform of the olive oil common market organisation (CMO) in the very near future. A document will be transmitted to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission cannot pre-empt the outcome of its deliberations by answering specific questions on the options but will certainly take the Honourable Member's questions and remarks into account.

It must be clear that the new olive oil common market organisation (CMO) should be simple, more transparent and easier to control than the existing regime. Quality should be at a premium and producers should be targeted as directly as possible. Differences of a regional, social and environmental kind should be taken into account.

Producer organisations have played a role in the management of the current market organisation. The kind of role they will play in the future depends very much upon the kind of option chosen for the new regime.

The reform of the CMO should not change the current policy on specific origins which is part of the Commission's overall approach to promoting quality and not part of the market regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3501/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) and Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Visit by Commissioner Gradin to Gibraltar

On 3 and 4 November 1996 Commissioner Gradin visited the territory of the British colony of Gibraltar. During her visit she carried out a courteous but undercover inspection of the customs post on the line of demarcation with the territory under Spanish sovereignty. This visit did not comply with Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) 1552/89 ((OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 1. )), which requires advance warning to be given to the authorities responsible for such establishments.

During her stay on the Rock, the Commissioner expressed support for the idea that Gibraltar should 'fly its own flag in Brussels' in the form of an 'information office'.

Was this visit carried out with the prior knowledge of the Commission?

Is the Commissioner aware that Gibraltar does not have its own flags and that its external relations are conducted exclusively by the British Government?

Was the Commissioner able to appreciate, during her visit, the grave damage done to the health of the Spanish people and to their legal economy by the huge clearing-house for contraband - including drugs - which the territory of the British colony of Gibraltar now constitutes?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1997)

The Commission regrets any misunderstandings regarding the recent visit to Gibraltar of the member of the Commission responsible for immigration, home affairs, justice and fraud prevention and is anxious to clear them up.

The background to the visit is that the Commission is supporting measures to combat the cultivation and smuggling of drugs and other illicit goods. The drugs problem affects people in every Member State and this work must therefore be high on the Community agenda. The Commission is cooperating closely with Morocco, for example, to deal with the cultivation of cannabis in that country. Substantial quantities of cannabis are smuggled into Europe as hashish. This problem also concerns Gibraltar, since the motor boats used for smuggling have been moored in the port of Gibraltar. These boats were recently seized by the authorities. This is very positive, and one of the commissioner's reasons for wishing to visit Gibraltar was to find out what effect this measure has had on the drug smuggling.

The Commission is only competent with regard to offices and representations accredited to it. This is not the situation as regards this matter. However, any interest group can open an office in Brussels.

The trip to Gibraltar was planned in conjunction with a trip to Morocco. The planning followed normal routines.

No inspection took place in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) 1552/89.

The Commission is, of course, aware of the fact that the British government represents Gibraltar in foreign affairs matters.