ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Pilot projects to protect areas from flash floods

Official Journal OJ C 185 of 18 June 1997 published a call by the Commission for proposals for pilot projects in the field of environmental protection of areas prone to flash floods.

Will the Commission say:

1. Has it received any proposals from the Member States on the above projects and, if so, what are they?

2. Is Greece participating in the above programme?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, following the call for proposals for pilot projects in the field of environmental protection of areas prone to flash floods(1), 19 pilot projects have been proposed, three of which have been adopted. Greece has not submitted any projects under this call for proposals.

However, it should be pointed out that, as part of the implementation of the Community action programme in the field of civil protection adopted by the Council on 19 December 1997(2), the Commission is going to grant financial assistance to the Greek Ministry of the Interior for a workshop to set up an early warning system for torrential floods.

Furthermore, the Greek civil protection authorities are closely associated with the monitoring of the above pilot projects.

(1) OJ C 185, 18.6.1997.

(2) OJ L 8, 14.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3256/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Disturbances on board aircraft and ferries

In the light of the rise of disturbances due to drunken passengers on board aircraft and ferries, does the Commission believe that the decision to exempt goods from excise duty when consumed immediately aboard aircraft or ferries is a sensible one?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

There has been no decision at Community level to exempt goods from excise duty when consumed immediately aboard aircraft or ferries. Under Article 23, paragraph 5, of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1), the excise treatment of goods consumed on board ferries and aircraft has been and remains entirely a matter for individual Member States.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Rules in the EU governing substitute medicinal products and forms of treatment used to help patients overcome drug addiction

In the European Union there are two almost completely different approaches to helping people overcome drug addiction.

The first is the officially approved model, which focuses on hospitals and includes monitoring by the authorities and the controlled prescription of medicinal products.

The second model is based on interaction: it focuses on the patient and places emphasis on the freer provision of medicinal products and open discussions. In addition, the patient has the right to choose the doctor and place of treatment.

There are also substantial differences with regard to the availability of the medicinal products used for the treatment. For example, Buprenorphin (Subutex), the medicinal product used in withdrawal treatment for out-patients in France, cannot be obtained on prescription in Finland because the authorities regard it as a drug almost equivalent to heroin and stipulate that it may be prescribed to drug addicts only in certain places and subject to strict monitoring of the patients and medicinal products. At least 80 drug addicts therefore travel each month from Finland to France in order to obtain prescriptions for this medicinal product.

1. Is the Commission preparing legal provisions to cover the medicinal products used in withdrawal treatment and in the treatment of drug addicts?

2. Is the Commission planning to launch investigations into the effectiveness of the various withdrawal treatments and medicinal products used to help drug addicts in the various stages of their illness?

3. Will the Commission take steps to bring an end to the situation whereby drug addicts receiving private treatment in many Member States are forced to travel to another Member State in order to obtain Buprenorphin/Subutex for their withdrawal treatment?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

1. and 3. Buprenorphin is, together with methadone, one of the medicines used in the treatment of serious opiate dependence. The placing on the market, indications, rules and procedures for the prescription of these "substitution" drugs falls within the competence of the national authorities, and the Commission does not intend to introduce legislation in this connection.

2. The evaluation of treatments for drug dependence is a priority of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction which, in collaboration with the organisers of the World Health Organisation (WHO) programme to combat drug abuse and the COST A-6 programme, organised a workshop on this subject in March 1997 at which the terms of reference were laid down for the medium term. In the same connection, the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence(1) sets out the minimum assessment criteria for medical treatment of a psychological or socio-educative nature.

(1) Decision No 102/97/EC, OJ L 19, 22.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3015/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Cedefop and "the principal working languages"

In his letter of 15 September 1998, which was objectionable in every respect, the Director of Cedefop, Mr Johan Van Rens, informed me that the Centre was not, in his opinion, obliged to draft its documents in Greek since, to quote his letter, "in all EU bodies the principal working languages (particularly at administrative level) are English, French and German."

This is a novel departure and, when taken together with the large number of anomalies and irregularities within the Centre, it is regrettably prompting criticism not only of procedures but also its unconventional senior staffing policy.

What view does the Commission take of the above observation by the Cedefop Director? Has the use of "principal working languages" been formally adopted within the Community bodies, something which would obviously exclude the use of all languages of the EU Member States on an equal footing?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1998)

Under Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (1), the rules governing the languages of the European Communities are applicable to the Centre. The Centre must therefore comply with Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (2). Under Article 6, like the institutions, the Centre may stipulate in its rules of procedure which of the languages are to be used in specific cases.

With regard to relations with the other institutions, it would indeed have been preferable in the instance referred to by the Honourable Member to send Parliament the information requested in all the official languages. However, on account of budgetary constraints the Director of the Centre was obliged to send Parliament the information in only three languages.

(1) OJ L 39, 13.2.1975.

(2) OJ 17, 6.10.1958.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Viclas System

According to press reports, during its Presidency Austria intends to break new ground in the fight against crime, by the introduction throughout Europe of the Viclas System installed in Austria in 1997 for the identification and detection of serial offenders.

Can the Council answer the following:

1. On what legal basis is it to be introduced?

2. What actual form does the system take?

3. What legal data protection precautions does it contain?

4. What progress has been made in the negotiations?

5. Has there been any opposition to the plan?

Reply

(18/19 January 1999)

The Council has not been seized with any proposal relating to the so-called Viclas system and has no information on the subject other than that the Austrian Presidency organised a seminar in Vienna from 23 to 27 November 1998 to explain the features of the system to experts of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2817/98

by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Overbooking and passengers' rights

In view of the repeated cases of overbooking or overselling which have occurred once more during the summer and the harm caused to passengers by overbooking, can the Commission say:

1. whether it intends to adopt new measures to regulate this situation, and

2. whether information on passengers' rights and the compensation due to them in such situations should not be put on public display in the Union's airports?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member and has therefore already taken the necessary steps to introduce new measures by means of a proposal(1) to amend Council Regulation (EEC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport(2). In this proposal the Commission suggests that information relating to passengers' consumer rights should be improved with clearly displayed notices at the airports.

Parliament has already finalised its first reading and the amendments are now being discussed by the Council. A common position could therefore be reached in the near future.

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998.

(2) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3763/98

by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Direct payments to farmers

Will the Council explain what the consequences are, in legal terms, of implementing the proposal for a regulation (COM(98) 158 - CNS 98/0113(1)) concerning direct payments to farmers under support schemes forming part of the common agricultural policy, which are paid in full or in part from the EAGGF, Guarantee Section?

Could the Council provide in its explanation an assessment of the legal position of the individual farmer, particularly in regard to administrative decisions, the reversal of the burden of proof and proportionality in laying down penalties?

Could the Council also provide an assessment of the discrimination that may arise from countries being able to introduce different rules on compliance with national environmental provisions, including the enforcement of those rules? Will it also assess the problems associated with the overall control of agricultural expenditure and reconciliation of the accounts?

Reply

(22 and 23 February 1999)

The proposal for a Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy, to which the Honourable Member refers, is part of the Commission's set of Agenda 2000 proposals. In that connection, the Council is currently examining this proposal from every angle (legal, economic, etc.). The Council has not yet adopted a position and is therefore unable, at this stage, to answer the Honourable Member's question.

(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998, p. 93.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Disappearance of documents, computer equipment, office furniture and office supplies when ECHO's external unit was shut down in June 1995

Is it true that, immediately before ECHO's external unit was shut down in June 1995, all the documentation, computer equipment, office furniture and office supplies "disappeared"? Is there a list or summary of the equipment which disappeared? If so, what sums of money are involved?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3864/98

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: European Parliament and Council Directive on cross-border credit transfers

What is the state of play as regards implementation of Directive 97/5/EC(1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border credit transfers, and why, given that the euro is to be introduced on 1 January 1999, is the Commission not doing more to ensure that the Directive is implemented and that the necessary preparations are made in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

Directive 97/5/EC must be transposed into national law by 14 August 1999. The Member States had in fact made a political commitment to adapt their legislation to the Directive before 1 January 1999. In most cases, however, they did not do so, and, in view of the purely political nature of the said commitment, they cannot be legally compelled to honour it. At a meeting with the Member States organised by the Commission at the end of October 1998 to discuss the state of play, the above-mentioned situation became clear. The Commission intends to organise further meetings on this matter at the beginning of 1999. It should be pointed out that this Directive ought to be implemented in all the Member States at the same time if possible, given that it provides for cross-border solutions.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that improvements in carrying out credit transfers, which are urgently needed for the third stage of monetary union, are dependent not only on the implementation of Directive 97/5/EC, but also on a more effective network of automated mass transfer systems. The Commission is in constant contact with the credit sector to discuss possibilities for making such improvements. In its recent communication entitled "Financial services: building a framework for action"(2), the Commission explained that it would particularly like to encourage the banking sector to set up cross-border links between the automated clearing houses, which in most Member States are very effective in dealing with domestic payments, but are not linked up for cross-border transfers.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 25.

(2) COM(98) 625 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Respect for human rights and democratic freedoms in Turkey

The Turkish Human Rights Association claims that the Turkish authorities have banned its chairman, Akin Birdal, from travelling abroad because he has been sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment. Akin Birdal was to have travelled to Norway to receive treatment for wounds he suffered during the attempt on his life a few months ago and to take part in an event organised by the Nobel Institute in his honour. Furthermore, eight Turkish students were recently sentenced to prison terms of between 5 and 8 years by the Turkish security court after being found guilty of belonging to an illegal leftwing organization.

How will the Commission intervene to safeguard human rights and democratic freedoms in Turkey, bearing in mind the crucial discussions concerning the report on progress achieved in relations between the EU and Turkey?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding Mr Akin Birdal.

The Commission closely follows all aspects of the human rights situation in Turkey. In its first regular report on progress made by Turkey towards accession, adopted on 4 November 1998, the Commission underlined the problematic aspects presented by Turkey in this regard and the necessity to improve the current situation. The report also made a specific reference to the problems faced by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the field of human rights in Turkey and to the case of Mr Birdal.

In this context, the Commission would recall the conclusions of the European Council held in Luxembourg in December 1997 which recalled that "strengthening Turkey's links with the European Union also depends on that country's pursuit of the political and economic reforms on which it has embarked, including the alignment of human rights and practices on those in force in the European Union ... ."

In all its contacts with the Turkish authorities, and despite the decision taken by Ankara to suspend the political dialogue with the Community, the Commission is determined to continue to express its concerns on these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Imposition by Turkey of duty on cotton imports

The Turkish Government recently imposed duty of 35 US cents a kilo on ginned cotton imports, despite the fact that the Customs Union Agreement provides that the signatory states may not impose customs duty or levies on trade amongst themselves.

Since this duty is at odds with the commitments assumed by Turkey vis-à-vis the European Union, will the Commissions say:

1. Is the imposition of this duty in keeping with the spirit and letter of Customs Union?

2. Did Turkey absolutely require the prior consent of the EU before imposing this duty? Did the EU give its consent?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Turkish authorities adopted a decree No 23462, dated 13 September 1998, establishing a customs levy of 35 cents per kilogramme on raw cotton and a surtax of 35 cents per kilogramme on cotton export. By another decree No 23489, dated 10 October 1998, the export tax has been removed and the import duties reduced from 35 cents per kilogramme to 5,2 %. These decrees have been adopted without the prior consultation of the Commission foreseen for such trade measures on industrial products in Decision No 1/95 of the Community-Turkey association council on the customs union.

The Commission considers that the measure still in force is not in line with the customs union obligations as set out in Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 under which no new customs duties on imports or exports or any charges having equivalent effect can be introduced between the two parties.

The Commission is raising the matter with the Turkish authorities through the appropriate channels.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3337/98

by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Advertising restrictions on alcohol and toys in France and Greece

The Confédération européenne des Producteurs des Spiritueux (European Confederation of Spirits Producers) and the Confédération des Brasseurs du Marché Commun (Common Market Confederation of Brewers) complained in 1994 to the EU about the French "Loi Evin" which largely prohibits alcohol advertising. The Commission is investigating the ban on French TV stations broadcasting sports programmes recorded abroad where these programmes contain posters advertising alcoholic products. As early as 1996 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to France, instructing it to lift the ban within 40 days. However, the ban is still in place.

1. When does the Commission propose finally to take action to ensure that the French ban is lifted?

2. In Greece a ban on TV advertising for toys has been in place for some time. The principal aim of this ban is to protect the Greek toy industry from foreign competition.

When will the Commission take action against the advertising ban imposed by Greece?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

1. With regard to the ban on television commercials for alcohol in France, the Commission has followed up France's response to the reasoned opinion mentioned by the Honourable Member by opening discussions with the French authorities. The purpose of these discussions is to get all the parties concerned (advertisers, broadcasters, the Conseil superieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA), the public authorities and sports federations) to agree on how to improve and clarify the existing code of conduct on the broadcasting in France of sports events which take place abroad and at which advertising hoardings for alcoholic beverages may appear on screen. Discussions are currently being held between the CSA and broadcasters on this topic. The Commission hopes that the advertisers, who had played no part in drawing up the original code of conduct, might soon be involved in the work. The Commission will assess the results of these discussions in 1999 and decide, on the basis of this assessment, whether to take any further action on the infringement proceedings which are currently under way.

2. As regards the ban on television advertising of children's toys in Greece, a letter of formal notice was sent to Greece in March 1997 under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty. On the basis of the reply from the Greek authorities, the Commission felt there was a need to have a closer look at the issue of the risks which television advertising might pose to children.

The Commission intends to open talks with the Greek authorities on this topic in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Kidney transplants

The problem of kidney transplants is a cause for grave concern throughout the Community in view of the large number of candidates for the operation who suffer from serious and chronic kidney failure and undergo dialysis, compared to the number who are operated on.

To avoid speculation and graft in connection with the tracing of available kidneys, does the Commission agree that it is necessary to coordinate these activities by harmonising the relevant rules in all the Community countries?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3414/98, E-3415/98 and E-3416/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission has information concerning solid organ transplantation, comprising liver, heart and kidney for the 15 Member States, Czech Republic, Poland, Norway and Switzerland which is collected on a regular basis by the International transplant coordinators society (ITCS). The Commission can provide the total number of transplants and transplants per million people over the period 1992-97 for most Member States, and over the period 1995-97 for others.

Article 129 of the EC Treaty concerning public health excludes explicitly any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States. Legislation regulating organ transplantation is consequently a matter for each Member State.

The Amsterdam Treaty in its Article 152 will contain new specific provisions on organs. This will enable Community measures to be adopted setting high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivates. Such measures will not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. National provisions on the donation or medical use of organs and blood will not be affected.