ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0782/98 by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Hens in battery cages

Under Article 7 of Directive 88/166/EEC ((OJ L 74, 19.03.1988, p. 83. )) on minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in battery cages, the Commission is required to carry out inspections to ensure uniform application.

Now that the Veterinary Inspectorate has been relabelled, moved to new headquarters, and has received more inspectors, would the Commission say how many inspections of battery cage units were carried out in 1997 and is the Commission satisfied that the provisions of 88/166/EEC are being properly implemented in all Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The Food and veterinary office (FVO) has a very wide range of responsibilities in monitoring the manner in which Community veterinary, food and plant health legislation is implemented.

There are presently 46 inspectors in the FVO. Part of the existing veterinary inspection resources in the office is already given over specifically to the monitoring of animal welfare controls, although this remains at the moment a minor part of the FVO inspection work. Due to the extreme pressure of work associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) controls, and the need to respond to health emergencies, it was not possible to include in the mission programme for 1997 the area of animal welfare to which the Honourable Member refers.

However, the Commission is significantly increasing the number of staff allocated to the office to allow it to undertake the full range of its duties. Inevitably, this recruitment process, and the completion of necessary staff training, will take some time. Nonetheless, the Commission is aware of the importance attached to all aspects of animal welfare, which will be given their due weight in future decisions as to the allocation of the resources required by the FVO to carry out its duties.

The Honourable Member may wish to note that the FVO is introducing a risk assessment-based mission prioritisation system. This will ensure that mission programmes reflect a balanced assessment of the different control and inspection demands placed upon it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: East Timor

Does the Commissioner expect to bring forward further proposals regarding European Community aid to East Timor?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

The Commission will continue to examine in what way its development and humanitarian aid may best contribute to the well being of the people of East Timor. A number of proposals are under consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/98 by Günter Lüttge (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Exemption from competition for certain services pursuant to Directive 96/67/EC on groundhandling

The footnotes to points 5.1 to 5.3 in the annex to Directive 96/67/EC ((OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36. )) on groundhandling services allow certain services to be exempt from competition if they are provided by the air traffic service.

Does the Commission agree that in this case the provisions of the German 'Law on groundhandling services at airports' would also not apply to these services, since they are exempt as a matter of principle from the scope of the Directive and hence from its transposition?

What information does the Commission have about interpretation of the Directive by the Member States, and how does it plan to ensure uniform interpretation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1998)

The Commission believes that the Community rules relating to groundhandling services and, consequently the national regulations implementing Directive No 96/67/EC, do not apply to the services to which a reference is made, if they are provided by the air traffic authority. However, it is necessary for national regulations to reflect the provisions of the Directive by including a reference to these specific services, not only for application in case of a change in the provider, but also to allow the users a right of appeal if they are not convinced of the identity of the supplier.

In compliance with Article 23 of the Directive, the Commission is informed of the provisions of national law which are adopted by Member States in the field covered by the Directive and therefore has the possibility to guarantee uniform implementation of Community rules if necessary by using the procedure foreseen under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. However, the prime responsability for ensuring the application of those rules, once implemented at national level, is with Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/98 by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Timing of investigation into book price agreements in Germany and Austria

On Wednesday, 14 January 1998 the European Commission opened an investigation into cross-border book agreements in Germany and Austria. Since this matter essentially involves whether Article 85 or Article 128 ECT applies, the following questions arise:

Why did the Commission institute proceedings at a time when a key element - the expert opinion requested by the Council of Ministers of Cultural Affairs on whether price agreements are justified pursuant to Article 128 ECT - had not been received?

What is the Commission's attitude towards the arguments for justifying price agreements: regional and national supply; variety in production and distribution; promoting new authors, cultural publishers and cultural minorities; and the fact that such agreements have stood the test of time in the German-speaking countries?

What is its attitude towards the conclusions expressed by experts that only about 150 of the 70 000 new titles every year would be cheaper but the rest would be appreciably more expensive, and that in Austria alone 200 of a current total of 770 bookshops have had to close?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998)

The Commission has consistently maintained that the Council's initiative in instructing the Commission to prepare a report pursuant to Article 152 of the EC Treaty should be considered independent of the competition proceedings concerning the German/Austrian price-fixing scheme for books ('Buchpreisbindung') provided that the proceedings in question are not impeded as a result. In this competition case, in which the publishers submitted the notification in the spring of 1993 and for which the Commission is solely competent, formal proceedings had to be instituted after the Commission had made a careful examination of the publishers' arguments and come to the provisional conclusion that exemption was not justified.

The arguments of the parties, such as supply over a particular area, were assessed in detail by the Commission in the statement of objections which it sent to the parties.

The Honourable Member states in her question that experts believe that only about 150 of the 70 000 new titles every year would be cheaper while the rest would be appreciably more expensive and that in Austria 200 of the 770 existing bookshops have had to close. Unfortunately, she omits to mention who these experts might be and on which studies or other findings they base their conclusions. It is therefore not possible for the Commission to make any detailed comment on this matter at present. In the United Kingdom, for example, two years after the lifting of the book price agreement, there has not yet been any marked fall in the number of bookshops.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0841/98 by Anne-Marie Schaffner (UPE) to the Commission (11 March 1998)

Subject: Harmonistion of copyright

The directive on the harmonistion of copyright stipulates that this right is to run for 70 years after the death of the author (see Article 1 of Council Directive 93/98/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 9. ))).

Is this Community provision, which should be extended to related rights including resale rights, binding law in the sense that the Member States cannot extend this time limit or, conversely, may they unilaterally extend it for certain reasons? If the second alternative were the case, the result would be a lack of harmonisation and differing charges in the various Member States, which would seem to run counter to the stated objectives.

Could the Commission provide information on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)

Directive 93/98/EEC harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights entered into force on 1 July 1995. As the Honourable Member points out, it stipulates that copyright protection is to run for 70 years after the death of the author.

In its amended proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of national legislation governing the resale right that was adopted on 12 March 1998 ((COM(98) 78. )), the Commission amended Article 8 in the light of Parliament's opinion so as to make it even clearer that copyright protection is indeed to run for 70 years after the death of the author.

Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98/EEC stipulates that the Directive is to apply immediately to all works and subject-matter protected in at least one Member State on the date of the Directive's entry into force, and this has led to a resurrection of rights in some Member States. The Directive must therefore be strictly applied, along the lines indicated by the Honourable Member. However, it should be pointed out that, under that same Article 10, Member States are to adopt 'the necessary provisions to protect in particular acquired rights of third parties'. This provision thus allows Member States to adopt transitional provisions that respect legal tradition, notably as regards observation of acquired rights and legitimate expectations. Recital 26 to the Directive refers in particular to existing contracts, while recital 27 demarcates Member States' scope of action. At any event, this provision has to be regarded as a derogation from the general principle of immediate application of the Directive and, to that extent, has to be interpreted strictly and to be limited over time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0197/98 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Council (11 February 1998)

Subject: EU export of steel wire ropes to Poland

Since November 1996, the EC steel wire ropes industry has not been able to export to Poland because of non-tariff barriers. I am also aware that Poland has recently refused to lower import duties, as required by the European Union.

Tenders to supply the mining industry give preference to Polish firms. The administrative and financial burdens currently make all exports from the European Community impossible. What is more, the Polish certification system, which is applicable to EU imported wire ropes, impedes deliveries.

As the tariff barriers violate the undertakings given by Poland as part of the European Agreement, I would like to know what steps the Council will undertake to ensure that these barriers are abolished in the near future?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The Council is aware of the problems raised by the Honourable Member. They form part of a complex set of problems * currently under examination by the Community authorities * concerning the restructuring of the Polish steel industry as a whole.

One aspect, as the Honourable Member has pointed out, has to do with tariffs. The import duties on Community steel products for 1998 were set unilaterally by Poland at a higher rate than the one laid down in the Europe Agreement. It may be noted, however, that this measure did not include steel wire ropes.

There are also some non-tariff barriers which considerably impede access to the Polish market in steel wire ropes. On several occasions, in particular the last meeting of the Association Committee on 4 March 1998, the Community has emphasized to the Polish authorities the importance it attaches to having this product removed from the mandatory certification system and to liberalizing the tendering procedure in the mining industry.

The Commission is currently talking to the Polish authorities about this question and the situation is regularly reviewed by the Council. If necessary, the matter will be raised at ministerial level at the next meeting of the Association Council with Poland during the second half of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Chernobyl nuclear power station and funding of new nuclear power stations in Ukraine

Chernobyl nuclear power station represents a major hazard to the whole of Europe. It evidently remains in operation because the EU and the EBRD have not fulfilled all their obligations as regards funding alternative modes of energy production in Ukraine.

What will the Commission do in this respect and will it fund new, unfinished nuclear power stations in Ukraine so that Chernobyl can be closed?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The Commission shares the view expressed about the risk associated with the continued operation of the Chernobyl reactors. The closure of the Chernobyl plant by the year 2000 is of prime importance. In this context the Commission fully supports the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the closure of Chernobyl by the year 2000 signed between the G7 and Ukraine in December 1995. The implementation of the MoU has already progressed well. US$ 1 billion (MECU 925) have been mobilized, mostly in the form of loans, for the supply of fuel, for plant rehabilitation and for energy efficiency measures. $ 500 million (MECU 465) are mobilized in the form of grants for the Chernobyl plant decommissioning and for the sarcophagus. A Commission proposal for a Council decision to make a contribution of up to MECU 100 to the new Chernobyl shelter fund ((OJ C 364, 2.12.1997.)) is at present under examination by the Parliament.

On the occasion of the Community-Ukraine summit of 5 September 1997, President Kuchma confirmed again a clear link between the closure of Chernobyl and the completion of the two nuclear reactors at Rovno and Khmelnitsky.

The Commission agrees in principle to finance up to 50% the Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2 project under the Euratom loan facility provided that the following conditions are met:

- the safety level of the completed reactors correspond to international standards;

- the necessary complementary financing sources, such as from the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD), should become available;

- Ukraine meets the technical, financial and other conditions which will be laid down in the loan agreement to be negotiated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Import and processing of milk and other dairy products from areas of eastern Europe exposed to high radiations levels

1. What tonnages of milk and other dairy products from areas of eastern Europe exposed to high radiations levels, in particular Belarus, have been imported into the European Union since 1992? Does the Commission know the identities of the dairy-farms of origin and the undertakings of destination? If so, what are they?

2. What restrictions does the Commission impose when authorizing imports of milk and other dairy products? Which importers are authorized by the Commission?

3. Is the Commission aware of the purposes for which the imports are intended and the kinds of subsequent processing that they undergo?

4. Can the Commission guarantee that these products will not find their way into baby foods?

5. What has the Commission done to ensure that checks are applied in accordance with Council Regulation 737/90 ((OJ L 82, 29.3.1990, p. 1. )) and Commission Regulation 3034/94 ((OJ L 321, 14.12.1994, p. 25. ))? How many checks have been carried out, and with what results?

6. What amounts have been approved by the Commission in customs-duty concessions and subsidies for milk and other dairy products from areas exposed to high radiations levels? Who are the beneficiaries?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1998)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Imports of tuna steaks from third countries

Can the Commission provide information on the volume of imports of tuna steaks from third countries, indicating the individual quantities by country of origin which cross European Union borders?

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-0850/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Introduction of a neighbouring-country compatibility assessment for all national legislation

Is the Commission aware that, according to reports from the Euregios, Member States regularly adopt legislation which conflicts radically with that of neighbouring countries, causing difficulties to members of the public and enterprises in border areas and reducing or entirely cancelling out the positive impact of open borders in the European Union?

What view does the Commission take of the idea of drawing up a European Directive requiring Member States to assess the compatibility of all relevant national legislation with that of neighbouring countries, with the aim of avoiding such adverse effects?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against non-ABTA travel agents

Documents forwarded to me reveal serious discrimination by regional education authorities in the United Kingdom against tour operators who do not belong to the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) or do not have their registered offices in the United Kingdom. Teachers are, for example, instructed by these regional education authorities on no account to choose non-British tour operators or firms that are not members of ABTA to arrange a school ski course in Austria. If this instruction is not followed, the course is not approved. This attitude is all the more incomprehensible as it can hardly be argued that ABTA members provide 'better' safeguards for the customer's money since the firm concerned is subject to the Austrian travel agency safeguard regulation (safeguards for customers' money), which is equivalent to the British legislation (Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992) implementing the same EU directive. To be able to offer to arrange school ski courses, the Austrian firm concerned tried to join ABTA (despite the substantial increase in costs this would have entailed). This proved impossible, however, because ABTA's statutes are so worded as de facto to limit membership to British firms. The attitude of the regional education authorities, especially in conjunction with the approach adopted by ABTA, is now thwarting all the good intentions associated with the establishment of the internal market.

1. Is the Commission aware of these events?

2. What does the Commission think of the attitude taken by the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) and the British regional education authorities?

3. What does the Commission intend to do about the attitude taken by the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) and the British regional education authorities in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Legalisation of illegal immigrants

The report on the human rights situation in the European Union in 1996 that was adopted during the February part-session singled out a number of Member States in which the residential status of persons living illegally in their territory is legalised after a given period.

1. Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the Union's current legislation?

2. Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the Schengen acquis?

3. What does the Commission intend to do as regards integrating the Schengen acquis into the Community and such differences?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/98 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Bhutanese refugees and the EU's response

Is the Commission aware that 100 000 Bhutanese refugees are now living in camps in Nepal in the Jhapa and Morang districts?

What aid is the European Union giving to these refugees?

Is the Commission satisfied that the Bhutanese Government recognizes its responsibilities towards these refugees?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

The Commission is aware that some 100 000 Bhutanese refugees are living at the Jhyapa and Morang districts in Eastern Nepal.

The Community is the most important donor. Altogether Community contributions represent a major percentage of the total aid package. From 1992 to 1997, MECU 13.4 has been allocated mostly for care and maintenance projects, while relevant assistance has been also provided for humanitarian support and food aid.

The issue at stake at the moment is not the recognition of responsibilities, but the need for a solution which finally puts an end to the refugees' plight. The Commission, which maintains a continuous dialogue with the governments of Bhutan and Nepal to convince them to reach an agreement, is aware however, that there is not an easy solution to this problem. Solutions can only result from in-depth dialogue between the involved parties.