ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4036/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Consumer protection - radiation from sun beds

There have been repeated reports in Germany to the effect that the radiation from sun beds in solariums exceeds the statutory limit values, staff are inadequately trained and customers are not being properly informed of the risks and of how to operate sun beds. Since excessive UVB radiation can cause skin cancer, there is a need for stricter monitoring. Hitherto sun beds have been monitored in Germany only on a voluntary basis. TÜV Rheinland (technical inspection institute) awards a "tested solarium" certificate on the basis of an assessment of the safety provisions and the level of knowledge of the staff. However, only 45 out of 9 000 solariums in Germany have been awarded this certificate.

1. Does the Commission have figures on the number of solariums in the Member States?

2. What is the Commission's view of the health risks of improperly operated sun beds?

3. Would it not be appropriate to draw attention to this problem, at least in the form of a recommendation to the Member states, and to make more stringent monitoring incumbent on the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1999)

1. The Commission has no information as to how many solariums there are in the Member States. Besides, it is difficult to put a number on them, since in addition to dedicated solariums there are other centres in which sunbeds are just one of the services on offer.

2. and 3. Although the Member States bear primary responsibility for the safety of their citizens, the Commission has already taken a certain number of initiatives with an eye to improving the safety of equipment of this kind and reducing the associated risks. For further details the Honourable Member should consult the Commission's reply to Written Question E-1602/98 put by Mr Siso Cruellas(1).

Currently the Commission does not plan to take any other specific initiatives.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 54.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2862/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Distance selling of financial services

Financial services were originally to have been covered by the general directive on distance selling but when this was no longer so the European Parliament called on the Commission to draw up a separate directive on financial services. The draft directive was rejected on 15 July 1998. This means in practice that the general consumer will find it difficult to benefit from the internal market in financial services and thus from the introduction of the Euro on the financial markets.

What are the Commission's grounds for excluding the financial sector from the internal market? Why did the Commission choose to reject the draft directive on financial services? Finally, how does the Commission intend to remedy the situation in which consumers have now been left?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2764/98 and P-2862/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1998)

On 14 October 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on distance contracts concluded between suppliers and consumers for financial services(1). This proposal is now being examined by Parliament under the co-decision procedure.

(1) COM(98) 468.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4080/98

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Abandoned villages in Aragon (Spain)

Aragon is the Spanish Autonomous Community most heavily affected by depopulation: some 400 villages, hamlets and farms, above all in the Huesca Pyrenees and the Teruel mountain regions, a fact which clearly reflects the regional planning policies implemented hitherto.

Certain individuals or groups are now opting for an alternative lifestyle and direct contact with nature as an escape from the big city rat-race, and seeking occupations in rural areas, either in villages which are still inhabited or even in abandoned villages. The "Colores" collective in Sasé (Aragon, Spain), which is fully integrated into the Sobrarbe district, has attempted to do this, but the administration has not adopted measures which would facilitate the collective's work in building stable settlements. The Aragonese administration has been parsimonious with regard to such settlements, and the only alternative which it has developed has been to reclaim abandoned villages for tourism purposes.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Does the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, not believe that the development, promotion and rehabilitation of abandoned villages should be stepped up, and that associations or collectives such as the "Colores" collective, which put forward stable schemes for settlement, should be helped to repopulate these villages?

3. To what extent are the rights of European citizens being violated when they are prevented from establishing a stable settlement in a depopulated region?

4. Has the Commission drawn up any draft directive or report on this issue, given the major migration from the countryside into large cities which is taking place?

5. Can the Commission make available any information it acquires when following up this matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 1999)

The Commission part-finances improvement of village infrastructure and services from the Structural Funds in order to help keep people living in the countryside and enjoying better living conditions.

In line with decentralisation and partnership principles the projects part-financed from Community funds are selected by national and regional authorities under rural development programmes approved by the Commission. In the case of Aragon Structural Fund assistance for village improvement is given under the terms of the single programming document for the Objective 5b area in which the village of Sasé is located.

The Commission has not so far discussed the situation of the Colores collective with the Spanish authorities and has no information about it.

It considers that national and regional authorities are in the best position to define policy (complying with civil and administrative law) on installation of persons and social groups in villages, as part of their rural development strategy.

Given the scope for action that already exists under the structural policies, the Commission sees no need for a specific Directive on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3369/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Semi-skimmed milk

Would the Commission confirm that its answer to question E-1368/98(1) is correct?

Is it not in order for Member States to charge different prices for whole and semi-skimmed milk?

Was consideration given to child health issues when Regulation (EEC) 3392/93(2), Article 4.1b was drawn up?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The Commission confirms that its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1368/98 is correct.

The Community legislation on school milk subsidies provides that the amount of aid for the different dairy products shall be determined taking into account the milk content of the products concerned. In other words, the amount of aid should be related to the value of the products. The underlying objective is to ensure that the net selling price for the different products would be more or less the same so as to avoid that this price would influence the choice of the pupil for one product or another. However, the regulations do not oblige Member States to charge the same selling price for different products. They merely oblige Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that the aid is reflected in the price paid by the beneficiary. It is, therefore, admissible that semi-skimmed milk and whole milk be sold at different prices.

The Commission is convinced that the operation of the Community school milk scheme is consistent with policy on health issues.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 119.

(2) OJ L 306, 11.12.1993, p. 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3959/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) , Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) and Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Equality of treatment with regard to various services (continued)

Martin Bangemann, Member of the Commission, signed a reply to Written Question No E-2554/98(1) by the undersigned Members of the European Parliament. The reply, which one hopes the Commissioner had at least read, was inadequate both in style and in substance. It merely called on those who had tabled the question to read the reply to Question No E-3942/97(2) by Raimo Ilaskivi, MEP. However, that reply does not even mention the issue of highly unequal treatment of summer residents and permanent residents, for example with regard to waste disposal rates and real estate tax, which was raised in the new question.

Without repeating the unanswered question, we would like to know:

- whether, before signing the reply, the Member of the Commission genuinely studied the text of the above-mentioned new question in its entirety, and if so,

- whether in his opinion the reply which one of his officials presented to him for signature was conducive to the development of an atmosphere of trust between the Commission and Parliament, and

- whether the Member of the Commission considers that, if a Member of the European Parliament tables supplementary questions to clarify the reply he has received, there is no longer any need to answer them, it being sufficient to refer the questioner arrogantly to a previous reply?

To be on the safe side, we are sending an unofficial English translation of this question directly and personally to Commissioner Bangemann, in order to avoid any possible breakdown in communications.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

The Commission would take this opportunity of reassuring the Honourable Members that it takes very seriously its duty to reply to parliamentary questions under Article 140 EC Treaty, and that it would regret any perceived failure to reply to a question.

Every question that the Commission receives is circulated to all commissioners, their cabinets and services. Every reply is approved by the competent commissioner, before being adopted by the Commission as a whole. The procedures established by the Commission aim to ensure proper replies to all questions.

Unfortunately in the case of some questions the Commission can add nothing to what it said in reply to a previous question. In referring to a previous reply the Commission does not intend to be arrogant, and would regret if it appeared so.

Turning to the matters raised in Written Question E-2554/98 by Mr Ilaskivi, it is only possible to say that, unless discrimination on grounds of nationality can be shown, there is no basis for Commission intervention.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 149.

(2) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 35.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4071/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Secondary occupations of Commission officials

In its reply to my Question E-2930/98(1), the Commission states that its decision of 7 May 1992 laid down the criteria for taking decisions on requests from Commission officials and other employees for permission to pursue activities outside their official duties. The Commission has not, however, published the list which I requested, i.e. the list of secondary occupations pursued by officials at Director-General level.

Does the Commission not keep a list of officials' secondary occupations? Does the Commission intend to draw up a list and can it specify when such a list will be published?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

As already mentioned in answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2930/98, any official wishing to engage in an outside activity is required to obtain permission from the appointing authority, thus allowing the Commission to verify whether that external activity complies with the rules set out in Article 12 of the Staff Regulations and the Decision of the Commission of 14 May 1992.

As far as most officials are concerned (officials up to grade A4), the appointing authority has been delegated, since 1 January 1998 in the framework of MAP 2000, to the director general of the directorate general to which the official belongs. This is to ensure the most effective judgement as to whether the outside activity is compatible with the professional activities of the official concerned and with the aforementioned rules. A list of external activities for officials up to grade A4 could be established by collecting the information from all directorates general.

In any case, an authorization given for an outside activity is valid for a maximum of one year. As already mentioned in Commission's answer to the Honourable Parliamentarian's Question E-2930/98, external activities, whether they are paid or not, implying the exercise of so-called liberal professional activities or a position within a commercial company are not allowed. Furthermore, the maximum ceiling on the total net income for external activities of the official is [fmxeuro]3 500 per year. The amount received by the official over and above this ceiling is to be transferred to the Commission. If the activity continues after that year, the official is obliged to introduce a new request upon which the appointing authority has to take a new decision. A copy of the decision taken by the appointing authority on the request is always kept in the personal file of the official concerned.

The officials of grade A1 for whom an outside activity has been authorised in 1998 are as follows:

- M. Micossi, DG 3, enseignement (université à Rome)

- M. Micossi, DG 3, enseignement au Collège d'Europe Natolin

- Mme Flesch, SdT, membre du Conseil Consultatif du Club Monnet Luxembourg

- M. Vanden Abeele, DG XXI, enseignement à l'université Libre de Bruxelles.

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 139.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: National aid packages to pig meat producers

Will the Commission comment on the recent packages of national aid for pigmeat producers announced by the French and German Governments and state whether such national aids are in keeping with the principles of the single market for agricultural produce?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission has contacted the French and German authorities to request detailed information about the support measures for the pig sector announced by the Member States concerned, in order to determine whether these measures include state aid, and if so whether the aid can be considered compatible with Articles 92-94 of the EC Treaty.
appropriate for creating more jobs in Finland. This position was not aimed at, and nor did it succeed in,
endangering freedom of expression as recognised by Community law.
(2000/C 27 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/98
by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission
(30 March 1998)
Subject: Ship-shaped production facilities for oil exploration
Does the Council Directive of 17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector cover ship-shaped production facilities for oilexploration?
Given the revised OECD Understanding on Export Credits for Ships which came into force in 1996, would
such floating vessels be eligible for EU subsidies?
Supplementary answer
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(1 July 1999)
Provided that the estimated value of the contracts is above the relevant threshold (ECU 400 000), Council
Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in thewater, energy, transport and telecommunications sectores (
1), which has replaced Council Directive 90/531/
EEC of 17 September 1990 (2) to which the Honourable Member refers, does apply where a contracting
entity within the meaning of Directive 93/38/EEC purchases, leases, rents or hire- purchases, with orwithout option to buy, ship-shaped production facilities for oil exploration.
The Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD) shipbuilding agreement was signed
by the Community, Japan, Korea, Norway and the United States in December 1994. It was ratified by the
Community in December 1995 and should have entered into force on 1 January 1996, but has not yetdone so because of American failure to ratify. Since the (revised) 1994 understanding on export credits onships is attached to it, it cannot be implemented yet and the rules of the current 1981 OECD under-standing continue to apply.
In accordance with Article 3.4 of Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 on aid to
shipbuilding (
3), credit facilities in accordance with the 1981 OECD understanding are regarded as aid
neutral and not counted under the shipbuilding aid ceiling. Whether ship-shaped production facilitieswould be eligible for such facilities would depend on whether they are self-propelled seagoing vessels asdefined in the regulation.
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2) OJ L 297, 29.10.1990.
(3) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
(2000/C 27 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0976/98
by Armelle GuinebertiŁre (UPE) to the Commission
(30 March 1998)
Subject: Legality, under European competition law, of the reservation of a quarter of French government
and local authority contracts for workers production cooperatives (WPCs)
French law on public procurement recognizes the existence of reserved rights for workers production
cooperatives (WPCs).C 27 E/4 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4094/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Projects in the delta of the River Nestos

Further to my previous question on the construction and operation of dams on the River Nestos (E-1648/98), I should like to notify the Commission that at the beginning of October 1998 the DEI (Greek Electricity Board) stopped the flow of the river through the Platanovrysi dam; as a result part of the riverbed dried up and dead fish were washed up on the banks. This is having adverse ecological consequences for the narrows and delta of the River Nestos which are protected by national, Community and international law.

This action by the DEI is also in violation of the Joint Ministerial Decision 16492/1996 under which the DEI is obliged to ensure at all times, even during the filling of the dams, a minimum flow of 6 m3/sec throughout the length of the river, as a minimum precondition for the project.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this information and what representations it intends to make to the relevant Greek authorities so that they establish who is responsible? In its answer of 26 June 1998 to my previous question, it had stated that if violations were established, it would take the measures provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. Does it consider that the above actions by the DEI could be viewed as a violation which is sufficiently serious to warrant initiating proceedings before the European Court Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The Commission brought an infringement action against Greece after a complaint had been made concerning the conditions under which the four dams on the River Nestos were being constructed by the DEI (Greek Public Electricity Board).

As part of the investigation of this matter the Greek authorities send a detailed report to the Commission in September 1998 on the current status as regards the work being carried out and above all on the launching of new studies in accordance with the Ministerial decision of 19 September 1996 approving the environmental terms (attached).

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the new information provided. Indeed, the Commission will take account of those new data when deciding how to pursue the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Checks on the ban on the production and use of animal feed derived from cattle

From 1 January 1999 there will be an EU-wide ban on the production and use of animal feed made from any substance and/or by-product originating in cattle.

However, it will still be possible to use animal feed (except for the feeding of cattle) made from substances and/or by-products originating in other animals (pigs or fowl).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What checks is the Commission intending to carry out in order to prevent the production and/or use of animal feed made from substances and/or by-products originating in cattle in all EU countries and particularly in Spain, where such feed is reported to be still widely used for the feeding of pigs?

2. Can the Commission confirm that it will continue to be possible to produce animal feed from substances and/or by-products originating in animals other than cattle?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3954/98

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Radiological and environmental impact of French nuclear tests on the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls

What were the main findings of the study undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on behalf of the Commission and the French authorities into the radiological and environmental impact of French nuclear tests on the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls? To whom has the report been circulated, and what further studies into the problem does the Commission plan to support?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Mururoa study was conducted by an international advisory committee (IAC) established by the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) at the request of the French government. The Commission was represented in the IAC as one of a number of international organisations which each provided an ex-officio member. The results have been published by the IAEA in several forms representing successive levels of technical detail, all under the title "The radiological situation at the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa", including a 16 page brochure(1), a 62 page "summary report"(2), a 282 page "main report"(3), and a "technical report" in 6 volumes totalling some 950 pages(4).

The findings were presented in two preliminary meetings in the Pacific basin and at an IAEA conference in Vienna from 30 June 1998 to 3 July 1998. The proceedings of that conference have also been published as IAEA-MFCP.

The overall conclusions as summarised in the brochure were as follows:

"In light of the measured and predicted levels of radionuclides - and the assessed doses both in the present and in the future - the Study concluded that no remedial action is justified on radiological protection grounds, either now or in the future. There is also no need for further monitoring at the atolls for the purposes of radiological protection. However, the Study recommended that a programme of measurement of radioactivity in the environment could be useful, not only scientifically but also in assuring the public about the continuing radiological safety of the atolls."

In view of these conclusions the Commission does not plan any new initiatives.

(1) 98-00958 IAEA/PI/A60E.

(2) ISBN 92-0-101298-5.

(3) ISBN 92-0-101198-9.

(4) IAEA-MFTR-1 to 6.