ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights

According to the European Council of Cologne, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is intended to give shape to the extraordinary significance of fundamental rights and their importance for the citizens of the Union.

However, lawyers are curious as to the future relationship between the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. They propose that the Union should be subject to the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to prevent human rights being eroded on the continent of Europe.

1. Is the Commission prepared to subject the Union to the ultimate jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights? If not, why not?

2. Is the Commission of the opinion that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not lead to the undermining of human rights on the continent of Europe? What are the Commission's juridical arguments for demonstrating that the Charter will not lead to an erosion of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

1. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it has stated on several occasions that it believes the Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. This would establish the same external checks on Community legislation as those applied by Member States to their own legislation. In the Commission's view, accession to the Convention, which would require amendment of the Treaties(1), has lost none of its immediacy.

2. The Commission attaches the utmost importance to drawing up the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This will result in the codification in a single text of all the fundamental rights protected in the Union, with an unmistakable improvement in legal certainty.

The Commission acknowledges the need to ensure that the fundamental rights laid down in the EU Charter are interpreted in a consistent manner where they correspond to rights already enshrined in the Convention.

For these reasons, it in no way shares the very pessimistic views expressed by the Honourable Member.

(1) Cf. ECJ ruling [1996] ECR I-1759.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Vegetable oil imports from Turkey

Pursuant to Commission Regulation No. 2828/93(1), the Member States must adopt all necessary measures to verify the destination and use of oils and to ensure that fats to be placed in free circulation are not stored with other products.

A case of alleged infringements of public health reegulations has come to light involving a consignment of vegetable oil from Turkey which was not subjected to all the controls called for by the Regulation.

According to press reports, the State Tax Agency in Spain admitted in June last year that such controls were not duly carried out.

Is the Commission aware of the above?

If so, what measures has the Commission adopted to remedy the situation?

(1) OJ L 258, 16.10.1993, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the case referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to be able to give a more detailed answer, the Commission would be grateful if the Honourable Member would provide more information. The Commission would also like to stress that Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2828/93 of 15 October 1993 laying down common rules on verification of the use and/or destination of imported products falling within CN codes 1515 90 59 and 1515 90 99, cited by the Honourable Member, does not deal with public health issues.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/00

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Uniform Community patent

Scientific research and technological development are driving forces behind economic growth and the competitiveness of European SMEs and therefore effective and appropriate protection for intellectual property is essential.

The current European patent system is not only complex for the various Member States to administer, but also expensive. Furthermore, the high cost of patents is generally seen as one of the main obstacles to their widespread use in Europe. It should be noted that more than 45 % of the patents issued in Europe are of US origin and 15 % of those issued in the United States are of European origin.

Can the Commission say what measures it proposes to remedy this situation and, if it can, how and when it envisages implementing them?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

The Community patent is a priority issue for the Commission. Further to the conclusions of the Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon and Feira European Councils the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on the Community patent(1) on 5th July 2000. The proposed regulation aims at creating a Community patent which is affordable and which provides full legal security to industry. The Commission proposal on these aspects is both ambitious and balanced.

The final timetable for the introduction of the Community patent will depend on many factors, not least on the success of the revision of the EC Treaty concerning the establishment of a new, centralised Community jurisdiction to deal with litigation on validity and infringement of Community patents. An integrated jurisdictional system that provides maximum legal certainty for the unitary Community title is one of the most essential requirements for the success of the Community patent.

(1) COM(2000) 412 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) and Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: IST non-research projects

The IST Programme is implemented through shared-cost actions and other support measures, such as support networks, concerted actions, accompanying measures, take-up actions, training activities and so on, as indicated on page 10 of the IST 2000 work programme.

1. Can the Commission provide a list of all the IST non-R&D projects, already established or being negotiated after approval by the evaluation panels, financed (or likely to be financed) as supplementary actions of this kind?

2. Can the Commission provide for each project or approved proposal a fact-sheet with:

- a concise description of the project,

- the list of main results expected,

- the list of the project participants with the relevant allocation of funds?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

A list of the 70 Information Society Technologies (IST) signed projects, other than those concerning Research and Development (R&D), is sent directly to the Honourable Members and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The fact-sheet for each project is available on the Internet in the public web server Community Research & Development Information Service (Cordis) at the following Internet address: http://www.cordis.lu.

More specifically the fact-sheet with a concise description of the project and the main expected output can be found at: http://www.cordis.lu/ist/home.html or http://www.cordis.lu/ist/projects.htm. The project fact-sheet can be accessed from the above web page by inputting the project number from the list of projects.

For confidentiality reasons, details of the contracts under negotiation will be available at the web site once they have been signed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2450/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Aid to UK pig producers

What is the latest situation concerning the British government's request for approval for special aid to British pig producers whose situation is disastrous due to the BSE/beef crisis?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Honourable Member most likely refers to a state aid notification submitted to the Commission by letter of 30 March 2000 with the title: Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme 2000. It should be stressed however, that neither in the rationale of the notification, nor elsewhere in the text of it, is any reference made to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) beef crisis.

The Commission confirms that bilateral discussions and exchange of correspondence with the British authorities have taken place, but that certain details of the aid scheme are still under assessment. Therefore the Commission is not in a position to comment on the possible outcome of this assessment.

The assessment for the compliance of the notified state aid scheme with Articles 87-89 (ex Articles 92-94) of the EC Treaty is carried out under the procedures of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty(1). In application of Article 20(3) of that Regulation the Honourable Member will be informed of the Commission decision on this dossier.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1199/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Medicines administered to children

Statistics published by the authoritative British Medical Journal show that 67 % of children in general paediatric wards are given at least one prescription for drugs which does not meet the criteria for which the drug was licensed.

According to the Mario Negri pharmacological research centre, this percentage can be as high as 86 % in Italy. In view of this, can the Commission say what steps it intends to take or might envisage to tackle this serious problem affecting children?

Can it also say whether any research is planned to improve scientific knowledge, so as to ensure efficiency and safety and a more rational use of drugs administered to children?

Finally, can the Commission say whether it is possible to promote and defend the right of children to be treated with drugs in accordance with evidence-based medicine?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the matters the Honourable Member has raised. This is indeed a serious problem, concerning not only children but the whole population.

It is true that in the vast majority of cases, and in most areas of therapy, the medicines administered to children do not exist in a specially adapted pharmaceutical form and have not been the subject of clinical studies geared towards that category of patients. Nor do marketing authorisations make specific mention of administration to children. Yet the fact is that the criteria of efficacy and safety of medicinal products, and their rational use, must also apply to medicines administered to children.

As for the Community research effort, two activities under the Quality of life and management of living resources specific programme of the Fifth Framework Programme are intended to ensure that the therapeutic arsenal is used to maximum effect in health care.

The first is a key action concerning the Cell factory, aiming to promote the enhanced, safe and efficient production of therapeutic substances. The second is an activity of a generic nature designed to evaluate specific therapies in the hospital setting by means of large-scale clinical trials, thereby providing a foundation for using therapies in accordance with evidence-based medicine.

Research projects now under way following calls for proposals in 1999 are looking at the best possible therapeutic approaches to congenital metabolic disorders, congenital muscular dystrophy and rare haematological disorders more specifically affecting children. Unfortunately, the Commission did not receive any research proposals targeted more specifically towards the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

New calls for proposals are due to be launched in October 2000, and again in 2001 and 2002 on the dates published in the work programme. The Commission hopes these will attract research proposals geared towards the improvement, efficacy and rational use of therapies specially designed for children.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1260/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Expulsion of bears from the French Pyrenees

In late March 2000 the French parliament decided that brown bears in the (French) Pyrenees should be forced to move home. In 1996 a number of brown bears from Slovenia were specially imported to strengthen and inject new life into the population of brown bears in the Pyrenees which faced extinction.

Does the Commission agree that capturing these brown bears and forcibly removing them to Slovenia or to zoos is a infringement of the habitats directive?

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take to induce the French authorities to abandon the forcible relocation of bears?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to an amendment adopted at first reading by the French National Assembly. To date, the Commission has not been informed of any final decision by the French authorities to capture bears reintroduced to the central Pyrenees or their cubs.

If France does decide to capture the bears, it must abide by the provisions of Article 16 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) the Habitats Directive. The Commission has not been informed of any decision by Slovenia to accept bears relocated from the Pyrenees.

The Commission hopes that the LIFE-Nature project under way in the Pyrenees will be able to continue with bears reintroduced to or born in these mountains, where until recently they occurred naturally.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/00

by Jan-Kees Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Unintentional legalisation of trafficking in PMK and XTC

In the Dutch version of Annex I to Commission Directive 93/46/EEC(1) of 22 June 1993 replacing and modifying the Annexes to Council Directive 92/109/EEC(2) on the manufacture and placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the word 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one is replaced with the word 3,4 (Methylenedioxy)phenylpropane. 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one and 3,4 (Methylenedioxy)phenylpropane are not one and the same substance. 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one, also known as PMK, is the base material for the hard drug XTC. Details are given on pages 1068-1069 of the Nederlands Juristen Blad of 26 May 2000, and in an article in De Telegraaf of 29 May 2000.

1. Why was the word 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one replaced with the word 3,4 (Methylenedioxy)phenylpropane in Annex I to Commission Directive 93/46/EEC of 22 June 1993?

2. Is it true that, as a result of the abovementioned amendment, PMK is no longer included on the list of prohibited substances and hence has in fact been legalised since 22 June 1993?

3. If so, does this mean that production of and trafficking in PMK, and hence also XTC, has not been a punishable offence since 22 June 1993?

4. Could this mean that, in many cases, there will be no legal basis for prosecution, which will result in the termination of pre-trial detention and, possibly, in claims for damages being filed against the authorities?

5. Could it also mean that many of those who are serving prison sentences were wrongly convicted?

6. What action does the Commission intend to take to remedy this unintended but potentially serious situation?

(1) OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 134.

(2) OJ L 370, 19.12.1992, p. 76.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

There is a printing error in the Dutch version of Annex I to Commission Directive 93/46/EEC published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The error is only in the name of the substance, but the CN Code is correct. Council Directive 92/109/EEC had already classified 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenile propane-2-one (CN Code: 2932 90 77) in the list of Category 1 substances, and in the amendment to this Directive the substance in question continued to figure in this category. Thus the substance is still classified and its illicit use is monitored under Directive 92/109/EEC.

Any criminal proceedings are a matter for the national authorities and result from the national implementing measures adopted as part of the transposition of the said Directives into national law. The Commission has no information on possible convictions referred to by the honourable Member.

The Commission has requested that a correction be published in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Sewage plant in Sarroch, Sardinia

In 1993 the region of Sardinia delegated responsibility to the municipality of Sarroch for building a sewage treatment plant at Perd'e Sali Porto Columbu with funding from the Envireg Community programme(1). After the project had been assigned to a firm(2), the work was suspended on 26 February 1996

for an expert's report to be drawn up on relocating the sewage plant, because the engineer responsible for the planning of the project had failed to take into account the fact that there was still housing in the vicinity of the proposed site. Once the survey had been approved(3), the contractors refused to resume work, prompting the municipality of Sarroch to cancel the contract(4). The work was then entrusted to another firm, which built the sewage plant at the new location indicated in the report, above the user sector, close to the sea, in the only remaining unspoilt natural area of the municipality of Sarroch.

Although a letter was sent to the office of the Cagliari Public Prosecutor on 23 July 1997 asking it to check the legality of the various authorisations for the construction work and compliance with the existing laws on the environment, no measures have yet been taken.

At present, the sewage plant has been completely abandoned and is a target for vandalism. The sewage problems of the area concerned have not been resolved and the area has been disfigured, jeopardising possible tourist development.

Will the Commission investigate the legality of the management of the Community funds used for the project? Does it not think that the recipients of the funding should compensate the European Union, since the project concerned did not fulfil its objectives?

(1) Decision No 35/3 of 24 September 1993; delegation order DCGADA No 2557 of 8 October 1993.

(2) Municipal Council Decision No 365 of 25 November 1994.

(3) Municipal Council Decision No 328 of 8 November 1996, endorsed by the opinions of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Public Education of the autonomous region of Sardinia and the office for the protection of the artistic, architecture and historical heritage.

(4) Municipal Council Decision No 58 of 21 February 1997.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Establishment of a pan-European air traffic control system

Recent media reports indicate that unannounced spot checks carried out at the Malpensa and Linate Airports in Milan have shown that air traffic controllers there have been acting in a most irresponsible fashion by clocking on for their shift but not actually carrying out their duties in front of the radar screens. Italian air space is already deemed to be disproportionately dangerous since traffic there has increased by 18 % within one year and the subsequent accident risks have increased by 140 %. In recent years, air space in many EU countries has become more unsafe.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation, and what is its assessment thereof?

2. What progress has it made towards the establishment of a pan-European air traffic control system?

Answer given by Mme de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

The Commission has no tangible evidence enabling it to judge the level of safety offered by the air traffic control system in Italy and particularly at Malpensa and Linate airports. It will contact the Italian authorities in order to obtain more information on this matter.

Since the end of 1999 the Commission has been working on an initiative known as Single Air Space which is intended to produce an air traffic control system that is tailored to European requirements by dealing with the current fragmentation of airspace on a national basis.

A high level group consisting of those responsible for civil aviation in the Member States has been set up in order to advise the Commission on the direction to be taken when reforming air traffic control. That group is expected to produce results by October 2000. These will spawn a series of legal instruments at Community level that are aimed, in the medium term, at the quality of air traffic services offered to air transport companies and to maintain, if not boost, the current levels of safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: US funding of European federalism

There have been newspaper articles stating that leading figures in the cause of European integration were funded in their activities through the American Committee for a United Europe, a front for United States intelligence services.

Such confirm the reports that during the 1975 EEC Referendum in the United Kingdom, disaffected CIA operatives alerted the leadership of the No campaign that their colleagues were actively involved in the other camp.

Given that the European Parliament has voiced its concern over Echelon, what is the Council's opinion on this?

Does the Commission have on file pertinent documents relating to this matter? What is their classification?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member knows, the whole Echelon context is at present under review in Parliament's temporary committee created for that purpose. The Commission participates in the committee and contributes its own findings wherever possible.

As far as the precise questions of the Honourable Member are concerned, the Commission has no knowledge or documents relating to this matter.