ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1247/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the Belgian Federation by failure to comply with Directive 91/321/EC

In the Belgian Federation, Directive 91/321/EEC(1) of 14 May 1991 was transposed by the Royal Decree of 27 December 1993 on advertising for baby formula foods and the distribution of free samples. The directive partially puts into practice the international code of conduct on the marketing of substitutes for mother's milk, drawn up by the World Health Organisation and Unicef and adopted by the General Assembly of the WHO in 1981. In reply to a question of interpretation

by Senator Sabine de Bethune, Mrs Magda Aelvoet, Federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, Public Health and the Living Environment stated on Thursday 22 March that the promotion campaigns by the manufacturers of baby formula foods are in conflict with the Decree. The distribution of free samples - and thus advertising for baby formulae - still seems to be a very common practice in Belgian maternity wards. This approach is not only unlawful, it is also in conflict with the EU Treaty (regarding distortion of competition), as well as going directly against the central aim of the WHO code, which is to promote breast feeding in the interest of public health.

Does the Council acknowledge that this approach by the producers of and traders in baby formulae conflicts with the EC Treaty and leads to a distortion of competition between the various maternity hospitals, manufacturers and traders? If so, what measures does the Council propose to take to deal with this distortion of competition? If not, what are the Council's arguments for regarding the free distribution of baby formulae by manufacturers and traders in maternity hospitals as compatible with the EC Treaty in spite of the distortion of competition which it creates between the various maternity hospitals, manufacturers and traders?

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

Reply

(27 September 2001)

It is the role of the Commission, and not the Council, to monitor the implementation of Community legislation and to take appropriate action where such legislation may have been incorrectly or incompletely transposed into national legislation.

The Council can therefore take no position on the question raised, since it is a matter which falls under the competence of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0973/01

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Subject: Driving and diabetes

I refer to my Written Question E-2542/99(1) and to the answer by Mrs Palacio which referred to the Commission's answer E-495/98(2) to Mr Howitt. In answer to my question, the Commission confirms that no developments since 1998 have prompted it to change its position from that which it indicated to Mr Howitt.

However, the Commission's statements to Mr Howitt (and also to Mrs Waddington at the same time) indicate expressly that the Commission had no substantial evidence at that time to support the belief that people with insulin-dependent diabetes had a greater propensity to be involved in accidents than other drivers.

Is it still the case that the Commission has no such evidence? Is there, in fact, any such evidence?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 161.

(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 75.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences(1), and more particularly its Annex III, deals with minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving power driven vehicles, which also includes Diabetes Mellitus. These minimum standards have been based upon advice by medical experts in this field, rather than upon statistical evidence relating to traffic accidents involving people with insulin dependent diabetes.

The need for further investigation in this field was expressed by the Council in its Resolution of 26 June 2000(2) on road safety which requested the revision of the minimum requirements of Annex III. Consequently, the Commission decided to launch research on diabetes in the context of the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme. The results of this, and other national studies, will be analysed by a special Working Group of the Committee on the driving licence, composed of experts in this field. Depending on the conclusions of this special working group, this may lead to a revision of the minimum requirements of Annex III of Directive 91/439/EEC, in due time.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) OJ C 218, 31.7.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Crisis in Turkey

The severe crisis in Turkey following the political clash between its president and prime minister has forced the government to float the currency, which is continuing in free fall against the US dollar and has lost as much as 43 % of its value in dollar terms. The currency has been devalued with IMF support, even though that same body had, in December 2000, injected USD 7,5 billion into the Turkish economy, in the last instalment of an international loan package. The immediate knock-on effect of the Turkish crisis on emerging economies, from eastern Europe through Latin America to Asia, has once again demonstrated that financial globalisation is here to stay and that it operates in trigger fashion, not only when there is a major disturbance in a G7 country but also when problems occur in one of the larger emerging economies, such as Turkey.

Having shut the door on Ankara in Luxembourg in December 1997, the EU revised its position two years later in Helsinki, to add Turkey to the twelve eastern European and Mediterranean candidates on the waiting list for accession. Given Turkey's severe problems in achieving monetary stability and meeting the convergence criteria, what is the Commission's current position on the matter? What is the present state of play on the reforms embarked on by Turkey concerning respect for human rights and recognition of the cultural identity of the Kurdish minority, as preconditions for any launch of the accession process?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 June 2001)

The Commission is closely monitoring economic developments in Turkey. It expects that a strong and credible economic programme will be finalised in the near future in close co-operation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The success of the programme hinges on its rigorous implementation in combination with support from the international community and the private sector. The reform measures, which have been announced should, if properly implemented, further accelerate the implementation of the economic reform priorities set out in the Accession Partnership(1).

As the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement indicated on 26 March 2001, the Commission welcomes the adoption on 19 March 2001 of the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) by the Turkish Government. This document is an important landmark in Turkey's preparation for Union membership and the first stage in a far-reaching programme of political reform. It is Turkey's interpretation of the Union's Accession Partnership. With regard to the political criteria for Union membership, a first analysis suggests that further efforts will be required in areas such as ensuring cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1959/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 July 2001)

Subject: Participation in ASEM Meetings

Working Group meetings of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), such as the Investment Experts' Group and the Senior Officials' Meeting on Trade and Development, involve the active participation of the business community, notably the Asia Europe Business Forum (AEBF) comprising leading businessmen from the 25 ASEM partner countries. Indeed, the AEBF is described as being supported by ASEM Government agencies and is actively encouraged to contribute to policy-making.

Will the Commission please state:

1. whether, and if so to what extent, Community funds are used directly or indirectly to facilitate the participation of AEBF members in such meetings, and

2. why similar facilities and access are not offered to other stakeholders, notably civil society organisations and trades unions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

1. The AEBF is a private sector. The Community supports the objectives of the AEBF and sends an observer to its meetings but does not give any financial support to it.

2. The Commission is always ready to meet other stakeholders and has met civil society groups on numerous occasions to discuss ASEM matters. Civil society has met in the margins of the various ASEM summits, and in particular in a People's Forum at the last ASEM summit meeting in Seoul in October 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Angling in the European Union

Given that the European Anglers' Alliance (EEA) is a pan-European organisation with a membership of 6 million anglers across 20 European countries and that the socio-economic value of angling is significant in many rural communities throughout the EU, could the Commission outline why efforts by the EEA to carry out a study of the socio-economic benefits of recreational angling in the European Union were not deemed to be of sufficient interest by DG Fisheries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The Commission is fully aware that sport fishing concerns a large number of people and that it has a major impact on the socio-economic situation of certain coastal areas within the Community. It is precisely because of the importance of the contribution of this activity to the development of certain local economies that it decided to associate the European Anglers Alliance (EAA) more closely with the work of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, when it discusses subjects of interest to its members. By so doing, the Commission enables the EAA to set out the concerns of sport fishermen and defend their legitimate interests at an appropriate level.

The Commission is not, however, able at present to agree to the request it received to finance the study proposed by the EAA on the socio-economic benefits of angling. This is because the contribution sought substantially exceeds the finance available to the Directorate-General for Fisheries for such socio-economic analyses and because the Commission can make contracts only as a result of a call for tenders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/01

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Campaign against torture

Amnesty International has requested the European Union to join the worldwide campaign against torture launched in October 2000 and, following the example of the guidelines for a Union policy vis-à-vis third countries with regard to the death penalty adopted in 1998, to draw up guidelines for a comprehensive EU policy against torture and abuse in third countries.

1. What measures has the Commission taken to that end?

2. Where does it consider that there is a further need for action in order to lend even greater weight to the established principles of the EU with regard to promoting democracy and human rights in the world?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

No government or country, no matter what its level of development or its political system, can possibly justify the existence of torture on its soil. It is one of the most abhorrent and vile abuses of human rights. The European Union has an absolute duty to work to see the prevalence of torture reduced across the world. The Charter of Fundamental Rights made our commitment clear, within and without the Union.

The General Affairs Council adopted Guidelines to EU Policy towards Third Countries on Torture and Ill-Treatment on 9 April 2001. The Commission contributed to their formulation and warmly welcomed their adoption. As with the Guidelines on the Death Penalty, they will send a clear signal that the issue is a Union priority and reinforce Union action in this area. The EU, and the Commission, has adopted the guidelines for use in its relations with all third countries. As Amnesty International noted, there have been reports of torture and ill treatment by state agents in over 150 countries over the past 3 years and torture is widespread in 70 of them.

The Community has provided funding for projects related to the prevention of torture and the rehabilitation of torture victims for several years. 2001 will see a large increase in funding for torture rehabilitation under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (Chapter B7-7): 12 million has been set aside for torture rehabilitation centers ( 6 million for centers inside the Union and 6 million for centers outside the Union). The Call for Proposals on torture rehabilitation closed on 2 April 2001. Projects dealing with the prevention of torture were also eligible for funding under the general Human Rights Call for Proposals which closed on 19 March 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Market in beef

In view of the obvious reduction in the consumption of beef in the European Union, has the Commission estimated the amount of beef required for internal consumption in the EU

in the medium term, and has it considered the possibility of paying increased subsidies towards a reduction in the numbers of suckler cows in order to reduce subsidised exports and/or the destruction of beef while simultaneously maintaining rural incomes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission, as part of its preparatory work for the presentation of a series of measures aimed at re-balancing the beef market, has estimated the surplus of beef on the Community market to be 785 000 tonnes (t) in 2001, 360 000 t in 2002 and 80 000 t in 2003.

The package of measures, which was discussed at the Agricultural Council of 26 February 2001, consisted of two main elements. Firstly, measures are proposed, which would have the effect of lowering the level of production and discouraging intensive methods of production. This would be achieved through more restrictive rules on suckler cow regime, but particularly in the special beef premium. Secondly, the remaining surplus would be absorbed by increased levels of intervention, totalling 925 000 t over the three years in question.

The Commission believes that, given the self-imposed budgetary limitations placed on the common agricultural policy (CAP) in the Berlin Agreement, such an approach, coupled with the necessary health protection measures put in place, appears as the only solution to the current crisis. The Commission therefore considers that, owing to that budgetary limitation, it is not possible to reach the objectives of reduced exportation and destruction of beef by increasing subsidy levels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/01

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Promotion of tourism in Europe

Replying to parliamentary Questions in the past, the Commission has never thought it worthwhile to set up a European tourism agency.

However, for several years Europe has undoubtedly been the world's leading tourist destination, and France, which received 75 million visitors in 2000, is now, along with the USA, the world's most visited country.

In certain European countries' balances of payments, tourist activities often rank first among the items showing a surplus.

Consequently, does not the Commission think it essential and a matter of urgency to set up a European tourism agency to promote and exploit the EU countries' numerous tourist activities?

Can the Commission say whether it intends to propose creation of such an agency?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission is perfectly aware of the importance of tourism for Europe's economy, through its contribution to both gross domestic product (GDP) and exports.

Following the conclusions of the June 1999 Council, the Commission worked in close cooperation with the Member States to maximise the contribution of tourism to growth and employment. It is currently preparing a communication on this topic, the purpose of which will be to set out the framework for the future of tourism in Europe, especially with regard to Community activities based on a strategic and cooperative approach.

However, the Commission can confirm that in the present circumstances it has no plans for setting up a European tourism agency.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0897/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: CAP net transfers

On 31 January 2001, the Commission presented its second report on economic and social cohesion. In table A.26 of the annex, concerning CAP net transfers, the Commission reaches the conclusion that Portugal, one of the EU's poorest countries, is a net CAP contributor, despite the fact that the amount contributed fell between 1993 and 1998. In its first report on economic and social cohesion, the Commission had reached the same conclusion.

Can the Commission provide me with:

- the preliminary data for all the Member States, and the method employed for the calculations, which were used to arrive at the conclusions of table A.26, given that these details are not explained on pages 12 and 13 of COM(2000) 24 nor the annexes thereto;

- the figures (net contributors and beneficiaries) for all the Member States from 1994 to 2001 (estimated), at standard prices;

- if possible, the figures for the same period offset by the intra Community trade flows in and out of each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat a copy of the results of the study used as the basis for the section on the contribution of the common agricultural policy to cohesion in the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion(1).

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0575/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2001)

Subject: Radioactive waste

According to reports published on 12 February 2001 in the Athenian newspaper Kathimerini, Albania has allocated former mines as a storage facility for radioactive waste from Germany.

1. What information does the Commission have on the storage of radioactive waste in former mines in Albania?

2. Does it consider that the method of storing radioactive waste in former mines, as practised in Albania, is safe? If not, what effects could it have on public health?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Commission has no information about the storage of radioactive waste from any source in Albania.

Under Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community(1), a Member State cannot authorise the shipment of such waste to a third country if that country does not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage the radioactive waste safely.

In general, the practice of storing and disposing of radioactive waste in disused mines has been studied by a number of countries. However, the costs and benefits of such storage must be examined on a case by case basis. As the Commission has no information about such a use for mines in Albania, it cannot give any view as to their possible suitability for storage of radioactive waste.

It is not possible to predict any potential impact on public health of storing radioactive waste in Albanian mines without information about the mines, the quantities and nature of any waste involved and the technologies being used to ensure its safe management.

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/01

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

(6 March 2001)

Subject: Lisbon European Council and investment

The 2000 Lisbon European Council called on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States where appropriate to improve the environment for private research investment, R & D partnerships and high technology start-ups, by using tax policies, venture capital and EIB support. What progress, particularly in terms of concrete examples, has been made since the Lisbon summit in this area?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Since the Lisbon European Council, a series of measures have been taken at European level to stimulate private investment in research and technological innovation.

The Community has stepped up its schemes on networking researchers and on venture capital to fund innovation in order to boost start-ups and expansion of high-technology businesses. The framework programme for research activities for 2002-2006(1), as proposed by the Commission on 21 February 2001, stresses that the networks of excellence and integrated projects will necessarily entail activities relating to dissemination, transfer and take-up of the knowledge produced. Designed as large-scale activities and conducted preferably as public/private partnerships, integrated projects will lead to substantial mobilisation of funds around precisely defined objectives.

To promote better use of tax measures for research and innovation, the Commission will soon be starting an exercise to identify best practice in this field.

In its communication for the Stockholm European Council on 23/24 March 2001 entitled Realising the European Union's potential: consolidating and extending the Lisbon Strategy, the Commission announced its plans to revise the rules on State aid for research and development by the end of 2001.

On a proposal from the Commission, on 20 December 2000 the Council adopted the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, particularly SMEs (2001-2005), which gives high priority to financial instruments, particularly in the form of venture capital to help to start up innovative new businesses.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) has launched its Innovation 2000 Initiative with the objective of strengthening research funding and venture capital. The EIB has doubled the reserve set aside to cover capital investment to 2 billion until 2003.

Finally, three potential fields for collaboration and joint action between the Commission and the EIB in the fields of research and innovation have been identified: research infrastructure, near-market industrial research and development, and venture capital to fund start-ups and business incubators. The objective is to create a framework for collaboration to capitalise more fully on the complementary strengths and synergies between these two institutions.

(1) COM(2001) 94 final.