ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2928/00

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) and Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Cloning of human embryos

Human life begins when the being that is procreated starts to develop autonomously. The cloning of a human embryo, in whatever shape or form, always involves the destruction of the cloned embryo and the by-products of cloning.

What measures does the Commission therefore intend to take to safeguard the fundamental right to life and to halt this dangerous race without rules?

Does the Commission not consider that human rights and respect for human dignity from the moment of conception should underpin the framing of policy and legislation?

Has the Commission convened the European Group on Ethics in Sciences and New Technologies to ask for its opinion on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is written into the Treaty of the European Union (Article 6), and forms one of the Union's basic principles.

The European Group on Ethics (EGE) is currently preparing an opinion on the ethical aspects of research into human stem cells and its applications, which will be made public on 15 November 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2152/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Short-wave antenna in the municipality of Argenta (FE)

According to information received, a large short-wave antenna is about to be built in the municipality of Argenta, Ferrara, with a view to broadcasting programmes by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The site earmarked for the antenna, however, is very close to several wetlands internationally renowned for their natural beauty, such as the Comacchio and Argenta Valleys, which are protected by the Ramsar Convention. Because of the large size of the installation, it would also be a dangerous obstacle for the numerous species of migratory birds in the area.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. at what stage the project is and what permits and/or authorisations have been issued to date?

2. how it intends to protect the migratory and non-migratory fauna from the risks of collision and from damage caused by exposure to electromagnetic waves?

3. whether the project has received Community funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2000)

1. The antenna is due to be built in the municipality of Argenta (Ferrara province, Emilia-Romagna region).

2. Italy has designated the Valli di Comacchio site as a special protection area under Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1).

Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) requires any plan or project likely to have a significant impact on such a site to be subject to appropriate assessment.

3. The regional authorities do not intend to submit the project for Community funding.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/00

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: EU export subsidies for transport of live animals to third countries

At the present time, export subsidies are paid for transport of live animals to third countries. These subsidies result in long and often harrowing journeys for the animals.

Does the Commission intend to abolish export subsidies for transport of live animals to third countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

Export of live cattle is an important outlet for the Community beef market and can hardly be substituted by export of beef meat due to the different slaughtering rites, the lack of coldstores in importing countries or the specific demand for fresh meat of the required quality in these countries. If the export of live cattle from the Community were to become impossible by phasing out export refunds, other suppliers would take over these markets. Australia increasingly exports live cattle to the Arab world with a journey considerably longer than from the Community.

Furthermore, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(1). This Regulation stipulates that the payment of export refund for live animals is subject to compliance with Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(2) and provides for an appropriate monitoring system.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2852/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: Go-ahead for human cloning given by UK Government

On 16 August the United Kingdom authorised the first forms of human cloning for research purposes in violation of European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC(1) of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, which explicitly prohibits any form of human cloning. Article 5 of the directive stipulates that: the human body, at all the stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions.

Will the Commission President call on the UK Government to end this anti-European initiative which is in breach of Community laws, invoking the principles of responsibility, solidarity and defence of the international community enshrined in the Treaties establishing the Union and which the UK Government has seriously flouted?

Does the Commission also have any information concerning pressures which may have been brought to bear on the United Kingdom Government by those who support human cloning for economic purposes and ends, and, if so, will it immediately inform the European Parliament thereof?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2852/00 and P-2931/00 given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

The member responsible for research stated a position on behalf of the Commission during Parliament's plenary session on 6 September 2000 with regard to the report by the UK group of experts concerning the authorisation of research into human embryonic stem cells and their therapeutic uses.

On this occasion he pointed out that Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions regulated the conditions under which an invention based on biological matter may receive patent protection. However, the aim of the directive is not to lay down conditions under which the research itself may be carried out.

Respect for the national identity of the Member States and for subsidiarity has caused the Treaty on European Union to leave the prerogatives to legislate on matters of ethics to the Member States themselves.

The Commission cannot impose any constraints on the freedom of states to lay down the conditions under which they wish to regulate research. Its role consists of promoting a debate on ethics while maintaining the diversity of our cultures and our sensitivities in Europe. It is thus one of the aims of the European research area.

The Commission has in its possession no information on any pressure on the UK authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Commission power over abuse of a dominant position

What powers does the Commission have, if it becomes aware of a dominant position in a market, to reintroduce competitive features into the market? Will the Commission please describe the powers to order a break-up of dominant businesses under United States law, and state whether it is in favour of introducing similar powers into EU competition policy? If it is not in favour, what features of the EU make such powers unnecessary compared to the US?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

In Community competition law the conduct of dominant firms is regulated by Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty. Article 82 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. It does not as such prohibit dominance. The Commission has no power under Article 82 to intervene against a lack of competition, which is due purely to the existence of a dominant position.

The Commission has the power to prohibit abuse of a dominant position and accordingly to require the dominant firm to bring the abuse to an end. To that effect the Commission may impose on the dominant firm an obligation to take positive actions. The obligations imposed may include remedies of a structural nature in case such a remedy is necessary in order to bring the infringement effectively to an end. It follows from the principle of proportionality that any remedy must not exceed what is necessary to end the infringement.

In the exercise of its powers the Commission has, for example, required a dominant firm to divest a minority shareholding in a competing undertaking, which allowed the dominant firm to gain influence over the commercial policy of a competitor and thereby to strengthen its dominant position.

Section 2 of the American Sherman Act prohibits monopolisation of a market and any attempts to do so. Like Article 82, Section 2 does not as such prohibit dominance. It prohibits the creation and maintenance of monopoly power by anti-competitive means. The remedies that can be imposed by the courts in monopolisation cases include divestiture, provided that such a remedy is required to end the violation. In some cases divestiture can amount to breaking up a dominant firm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/00

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Amount and use of the tobacco premium

Part of the premium (one per cent before 1999 and two per cent thereafter) paid to tobacco farmers is retained for research purposes. How much money has now accrued from that deduction since 1997, and what funds were disbursed on what projects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

As regards the total accrued from the deductions, it should be noted that this is not a fund stricto sensu into which the deductions are paid annually and from which monies are taken to finance action. In practice the action initiated by the Commission is financed from the ad hoc heading Community fund for research and information (B1-175). Its appropriations correspond to the estimates of actual incurred costs for the financial year in question. The Commission ensures that neither appropriations nor expenditure exceed the product of the deductions.

The amounts entered under heading B1-175 of the Community budget for the years in question were 4 900 000 (1997), 8 000 000 (1998), 6 000 000 (1999) and 6 000 000 (2000).

Since the fund was set up three research projects have been selected following the first call for proposals (Community contribution 5 900 000) and six following the second (Community contribution 6 500 000). A project list will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

In addition since being set up the fund has financed 18 information projects following two calls for proposals. A list of these will likewise be sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3114/00

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Protection of designs

The considerable differences between the Member States' legislation on designs in terms of applications, design registration authorities, procedures, laws, nationally restricted sole rights, etc. make it very difficult and costly to protect a product from competitors.

What protection is provided by the EU's rules on the protection of designs for a Dane who had his design copied 13 years ago by a large Italian firm? Where should he make representations and is it possible for him where the design of his product is protected in Denmark, to take legal action in the Member State where the product has been copied?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member about the results that have been achieved with a proposal for a Directive 98/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, of 13 October 1998, on the legal protection of designs(1) and some of the expected result of work with the designs regulation(2) in relation to his question. The Directive harmonises the essential elements of the Member States' substantive law on industrial designs and it will certainly make it much easier for individual industrial designers to rely on the protection afforded to them in each Member State, as soon as the legislation is harmonised which, according to the Directive, should be no later than 28 October 2000. Industrial designs protection is dependant on the various national systems such as registration, but apart from specific designs protection each Member State must provide for remedies against copyright infringements and unfair competition. The Community designs regulation will in contrast provide for an easy, user friendly and affordable system to obtain designs protection for the whole Community. As to the Honourable Member's specific question about the problems, it seems a solution cannot be found in Community law as Community legislation does not apply with retroactive effect. Therefore, the solution depends in principle on the relevant law of the Member States in which the problem arises.

(1) OJ L 298, 28.10.1998.

(2) COM(2000) 660.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Use of biological weapons against drug-growers

Is the Commission aware of reports (e.g. Observer, London, 17 September 2000) that Member States are engaged in developing biological agents aimed at eradicating plants used for the manufacture of prohibited drugs? Can the Commission confirm that any use of such agents within the territory of the EU would be contrary to the precautionary principle and would be illegal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the reports mentioned. Whether use of biological agents to eradicate plants used for producing prohibited drugs contravenes the precautionary principle or is illegal is a complex question which cannot be answered in general. Particular uses need to be examined on a case by case basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Making school milk an integral feature of a healthy food policy

Because the school milk programme contributes to the objectives in respect of food and health policy, the Commission and the Ministers of Agriculture have decided to reduce subsidies under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to 75 %. Yet it is more sensible to offer schoolchildren free milk instead of leading them astray with Fanta or Cola machines supplied by the soft drinks industry. It therefore seems appropriate to transfer the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the healthy food policy programme.

Will the Commission encourage transferring the remaining 25 % of the school milk programme to the healthy food policy programme, given the particular interest in this subject expressed by the Commission and the Member States? If not, why is the Commission of the opinion that the remaining 25 % should not be charged to the healthy food policy budget? How does the Commission reconcile this position with the statement by Commissioner Fischler that distribution of milk in schools can help achieve nutritional and social objectives (answer to Written Question E-1320/00(1))?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 126.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

In the explanatory memorandum attached to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1) that has resulted in the Council's decision to reduce the school milk subsidy to 75 % of the milk target price (Council Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000 of 20 July 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999(2)), the Commission has indeed recognized that this scheme could also play a role within broader general policy objectives in the health, nutritional or social fields set and operated at Community or Member State level. However, the Commission has also underlined that the Community's tight budgetary situation, irrespective of whether it relates to agriculture expenditure or to other policies, does not allow for greater involvement in the school milk scheme.

The question of topping up the above Community subsidy is, therefore, a matter to be examined at Member States' level, possibly in cooperation with other interested parties. The Community regulation on school milk provides indeed for a legal basis allowing for additional national aid, which may be financed by means of a contribution collected from the dairy sector. Moreover, such participation would be consistent with the strong interest and vocal support for school milk expressed by the latter during the discussions on the Commission's proposal.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 28.3.2000.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Labelling on blister strips containing medicines

There is a requirement that all medicines marketed in the UK, whether imported or not, comply with the UK labelling legislation, which means that certain particulars must be in the English language. However, instructions on the blister strip, for example days of the week, are not covered by this legislation.

What are the Commission's views on making it compulsory that all instructions relevant to taking a course of medicine are clearly set out in the language of the country in which they are dispensed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992, on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets(1), provides for the obligation to label the medicinal product in the official language or languages of the Member State where the product is placed on the market (Article 4.2). This provision covers both the outer packaging and the immediate packaging of medicinal products. The same obligation applies to the information contained on the package leaflet (Article 8).

The instructions on the blister strip should therefore be covered by this Directive and by the British labelling legislation, transposing this Directive and providing for the instructions to be in the English language.

These provisions are justified by the need to provide the patients with clear and understandable information.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Food aid programme for the most deprived persons in the European Union

According to the study conducted by the ADE consultancy firm at the Commission's request, the European Union's food aid programme, a product of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92(1), has demonstrated its social benefits and its relevance, given the persistent presence of poverty in Europe.

In the light of these observations, how does the Commission plan to boost this programme in future years, whilst maintaining the variety of the products distributed to those who need them most?

In particular, will it indicate how it intends to make use of the changes to the rules introduced in 1995 (by Council Regulation (EC) No 2535/95(2)), which authorise the purchase of temporarily unavailable products on the Community market?

(1) OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50.

(2) OJ L 260, 31.10.1995, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out, the study carried out in 1999 at the Commission's request confirmed that the aid measure disposes of agricultural surpluses from intervention stocks in a manner which benefits deprived persons in the Community.

The Commission has had occasion to propose to the budgetary authority that the appropriations allocated to the measure should be increased from the original 100 million in 1988 to 200 million in more recent preliminary draft budgets. Several times since 1997 the budgetary authority has reduced the overall amount which the Commission was proposing to allocate to the measure.

The programme constitutes one source of supply for the associations which benefit from it and which worked without it before its entry into force. After finding out what the associations need, Member States taking part in the programme inform the Commission of their preferences from among all the products available from intervention. The market organisation reforms undertaken in respect of the products concerned may mean that a product is absent long term from intervention stocks and hence unavailable under the programme.

In so far as the overall budget remains unchanged, that absence can be offset by increasing other products' quantity. The associations will therefore ask their other sources of supply for more of the products which are no longer obtainable at European level and for correspondingly less of other products. The programme is not, and is not intended to become, the only source of supply for the associations which benefit from it.

As in the past the Commission intends to continue to apply Council Regulation (EC) No 2535/95 of 24 October 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community(1), which permits it to authorise the purchase of a product on the market if that product is temporarily unavailable from intervention stocks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2535/95 of 24 October 1995 (OJ L 260, 31.10.1995).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Standardisation of the procedures for holding competitive examinations for entry into the civil service

The procedures for holding competitive examinations for the recruitment of civil servants vary from Member State to Member State.

Among the fundamental principles of such examinations should be transparency and simplification of administrative procedures, but these principles are often flouted by public bodies and hence unacceptable irregularities may occur.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to introduce legislation on the subject, by proposing common rules for holding competitive examinations, in order ensure that all Community citizens are subject to the same conditions, that there are instruments to monitor the activity of the organisers of competitive examinations in accordance with procedural standards (type of documentation to be submitted by candidates, access to records, deadlines, appeals, levels of appeal, etc.) which would be the same throughout Europe and, finally, ensure that citizens do not have excessive costs to bear?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

The Community is not legally competent to regulate the internal organisation of Member States' public services, including methods of recruitment. Furthermore, it is for the Member States to ensure that their national rules on access to the public sector are correctly applied. Therefore, the Commission does not intend to present a proposal for Community legislation aimed at harmonising the Member States' methods of recruitment of civil servants.

However, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, monitors the correct application of the right of free movement of workers in the public sector as interpreted by the Court of Justice.