ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2977/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Incineration of pigmeat

Is the Commission aware that pigmeat, which is a rich and valuable food, is being incinerated because of lack of markets in Member States and can the Commission state whether they have considered using this surplus food for the relief of famine in poor countries or even in the Soviet Union where temporary shortages may occur in the coming winter.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1998)

The Commission is not aware of the use of incineration in the Community as a measure to reduce the supply of pigs. In the framework of a temporary national and exceptional scheme in Northern Ireland, however, pigs were rendered and then buried in a landfill site. This scheme was applied for a short period in summer 1998 after a fire in an important pig slaughterhouse, in order to overcome animal welfare problems for heavy pigs which could not be slaughtered because of the lack of slaughter capacity.

There are clear signs that normal trade of pigmeat with Russia is recovering and also new outlets have been found by traders. The recently increased exports refunds and the introduction of aid for private storage should help. The Commission is monitoring developments in Russia very carefully and will continue to respond in an appropriate manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2941/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) and Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Inconvenience to passengers as a result of delayed flights

As a result of the chaos affecting air services at many airports, the incidence of large numbers of passengers missing flights is becoming increasingly common.

On occasion, the inconvenience caused is the result of unreasonable delays for which no compensation is awarded. We may well find ourselves faced with instances of airlines abusing their position and denying responsibility for the repeated delays they cause.

Does the Commission view as adequate the procedures which protect the rights of consumers in their dealings with airlines in instances where delays are unreasonable and flights missed?

Has it given thought to the possibility of establishing an "automatic compensation system for avoidable flight delays?"

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 1998)

Delays at airports are highly regrettable and costly but they are often due to infrastructure, air traffic control difficulties, or other problems relating to the airports themselves, rather than to airline performance. These realities would make automatic compensation by airlines inappropriate.

Air carriers are, however, responsible for fulfilling their contractual obligations and cannot be exempted from this responsibility by contractual terms. If delays are caused by inadequate performance of their contractual obligations or by negligence, air carriers may be held responsible under the applicable national law. In this respect, it may be recalled that national laws have been approximated by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts(1).

The Commission recently launched a study to identify the type of information that air passengers need on delays and all other relevant issues and when they need it, and on the best means of establishing whether and how the appropriate information can be communicated in the most efficient and understandable way. The results of this study will naturally inform any Commission decisions about any further measures that could be proposed in this area.

(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3562/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: The European Development Fund as a "milch cow"

In his book "The Lost Vision", Dr Nikolas Alexandrakis levelled serious accusations against the financial management of the Commission with regard to development aid. Thus, it is alleged that generous payments to dictators were made from the Lomé funds by order of the Director-General of DG VIII. The bloody regime of Sergeant Doe in Liberia, where Dr Alexandrakis was accredited as head of delegation of the EU Commission, is supposed to have been supported in this manner. It appears that Dr Alexandrakis informed the services in Brussels (DG VIII) that ministers and officials of the Doe regime considered the European Development Fund as a milch cow for their personal financial benefit (page 49). Thus, ministers are said to have regularly and systematically received a cut from the Commission funds allocated to development projects. Despite being aware of these circumstances, the leadership of DG VIII is supposed to have insisted on the continuation of these corrupt practices.

In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

- What is the Commission's assessment of the book by Dr Alexandrakis entitled "The Lost Vision?"

- Can the Commission say what percentage of development aid has been, or is, kept by corrupt recipient governments as a "commission"?

- If so, can the Commission also say what sums and what governments are involved?

- Can the Commission give an estimate of the total payments syphoned off by dictators such as Mobutu, Moi, Bokassa, etc. from the budget and project aid under the Lomé Convention?

- Can the Commission say what proportion of the multimillion fortunes of Messrs Abacha and Mobutu has been financed by the EU?

- Is any effort being made to recover these diverted EU funds from the estates of these corrupt despots? If so, how successful have these efforts been? If not, why not?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: The work of the ECVAM with regard to finding alternatives to experiments on animals

Professor Balls, director of the ECVAM, recently had his contract renewed for only two years, although this type of appointment is normally renewed for five years.

The members of the ESAC (the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee) are very concerned at this short extension because they are afraid that the ECVAM's important work could suffer as a result and because it sends out the wrong signal to the cosmetics industry.

1. Can the Commission state what the requirements in respect of the ECVAM are concerning implementation of directive 76/768/EEC, and what are the prospects of finding adequate alternatives to animal experiments for cosmetic purposes?

2. Can the Commission say how much money has been earmarked for this sort of work over the next five years?

3. Is the Commission prepared to give the ECVAM a broad financial and substantive mandate and to extend Professor Balls' appointment to five years instead of two?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to joint Written Questions E-1979/98 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke and others(1), E-2428/98 by Mr Fayot(2) and E-2517/98 by Mrs van Putten(3).

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999.

(2) See page 6.

(3) See page 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3170/98

by Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Participation by applicant Member States in invitations to tender for construction projects after 1 January 2000

Is it true that from 1 January 2000 firms from applicant Member States, or at least those in the "first wave", will be able to take part in public tendering procedures for construction projects on the same footing as firms from Member States of the European Union, and does this involve a commitment to issue calls for tenders for construction projects of the European Union and of the Member States in the applicant countries, too?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Community has concluded Europe agreements with all the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) which have applied for membership of the European Union (Bulgaria(1), Czech Republic(2), Hungary(3), Poland(4), Rumania(5), Slovak Republic(6), Estonia(7), Latvia(8), Lithuania(9) and Slovenia(10)). The Europe agreements contain rules on public procurement which are almost all identical and specify that undertakings from the CEECs, as from the date of entry into force of the Europe agreement, have in conformity with the relevant community rules full access to tendering procedures for public procurement contracts in the Community, under conditions which are not less favourable than the conditions granted to companies from the Community.

The rules on participation in tenders do not affect existing rules of the Member States on employment and the free movement of employees with regard to third country citizens, in particular immigration and labour law rules, in relation to the fulfilment of public contracts.

After a transitional period, the length of which varies from one Europe agreement to the other, undertakings from Member States can take part in invitations to tender of public contracts in those countries, under the same conditions as undertakings from the candidate accession countries.

The date of 1 January 2000, mentioned by the Honourable Member, is thus not relevant to explain the relations between each candidate country and the Community in the field of public procurement.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.1994, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(2) OJ L 360, 31.12.1994, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(3) OJ L 347, 31.12.1993, see Art. 66. It entered into force on 1 February 1994.

(4) OJ L 348, 31.12.1993, see Art. 67. It entered into force on 1 February 1994.

(5) OJ L 357, 31.12.1994, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(6) OJ L 359, 31.12.1994, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1995.

(7) OJ L 68, 9.3.1998, see Art. 67. It entered into force on 1 February 1998.

(8) OJ L 26, 2.2.1998, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1998.

(9) OJ L 51, 20.2.1998, see Art. 68. It entered into force on 1 February 1998.

(10) The Europe Agreement with Slovenia has not entered into force yet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Measures to improve the production and marketing of honey

Regulation 1221/97(1) provides for measures to improve the production and marketing of honey.

Given that it specifically states on a number of occasions that it is aimed at beekeepers, the following questions arise in connection with the implementation of this Regulation:

1. Is it in keeping with the Regulation that, owing to the national programmes, the target group named by the Regulation should be neglected?

2. What control mechanisms does the Commission have to ensure that EU funds are used for the benefit of the target group in question?

3. How does the Regulation comply with the principle of transparency and targeted use, if only a tiny proportion of the aid is channelled directly to the target group, namely beekeepers?

4. How does the Commission view the fact that, owing to the national orientation of the measures "to improve the production and marketing of honey", only some 40 % of the resources provided have been utilised?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Regulation (EC) 1221/97 on measures to improve the production and marketing of honey allows Member States to include in their programmes five particularly important types of measures: (a) technical assistance, (b) control of varroasis, (c) rationalisation of transhumance, (d) analysis of the physicochemical properties of honey and (e) applied research into improving the quality of honey. Clearly, while beekeepers are referred to in (a) of Article 1(2), the above-mentioned measures will all have a positive effect- although not necessarily a direct one - on beekeepers' incomes.

Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 2300/97 of 20 November 1997 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey(2) deals with control arrangements.

The deadline for incurring expenditure in respect of measures under national programmes for improving the production and marketing of honey has been postponed until 31 January 1999 in the case of the first year of implementation (Council Regulation (EC) 2070/98 of 28 September 1998 amending Regulation (EC) 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey(3)), resulting in the carryover to the 1999 budget of part of the 1998 budget.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997.

(3) OJ L 265, 30.9.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2448/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Town-planning regulations and livestock farming in the Canaries

The municipality of La Laguna (Tenerife, Canaries) currently accounts for a significant percentage of livestock in the Canaries, especially cattle, with more than 240 farms, in addition to the land used for other livestock farming and the cultivation of rain-fed fodder.

This important sector of production, which involves more than 5 500 cows, has expanded its potential due among other things to the significant aid provided under the programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican), adopted by Council Decision of 26 June 1991 (91/314/EEC) (1). Title III of the annex thereto (point 6,7 ) makes provision, "to promote the development of stock farming to meet local market needs", for "a system of aid for the purchase of breeding animals originating in the Community."

Nevertheless, in the municipality of La Laguna (island of Tenerife, Canaries), the governing group is transacting a set of town-planning regulations (General Town Planning Scheme) which will, if they are adopted, lead in the short and medium term to the disappearance of a large percentage of these livestock farms following the conversion of farmland into building land.

This situation will lead to the paradox that, despite the aid received from the European Union, current livestock numbers will fall as a result of local decisions.

Is the Commission aware of the above developments?

What is the Commission's opinion of the fact that local authorities sometimes take decisions of this kind, which may undermine decisions taken in favour of certain sectors of production?

Can the Commission draw attention to the need to preserve the various fields of development of productive activities in order to ensure that the aid programmes envisaged under Poseican fulfil their purpose?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The Commission was not aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The tasks for which the Commission is responsible under the Treaties do not provide the Commission with the type of information set out in the question.

The Commission has no responsibility in the issue raised, which rests solely with the local, regional and national authorities involved.

The Commission considers that it is not qualified to act in this matter.

(1) OJ L 171, 29.6.1991, p. 5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3364/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Revision of the Geneva Convention on refugees

The Austrian Presidency has issued a strategy document on migration and asylum policy. The document contains proposals to revise or abrogate the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees concerning the legal obligation on the Member States to provide persons in need with international protection. The right to asylum is radically curtailed as it is treated not as a personal civil right but as a an offer from the refugees' host state. The Austrian Presidency's document states that the final text will be submitted in December 1998 either as an adopted conclusion or as an interim stage of the debate. Will the Council, therefore, say whether it is aware of the justifiably strong reactions of the Non-Governmental Organizations, political groups and Members of the European Parliament and the press to the proposals to abrogate the Geneva Convention and what is its position in this respect? Does it intend to amend its text significantly in response to those reactions?

Reply

(22 and 23 February 1999)

1. The Austrian Presidency's strategy paper on migration and asylum policy is a discussion document which aims at provoking further thought and consideration about how to get to grips with problems in the areas of migration and asylum. It does not claim to lay down future European Union policy in these areas but does try to ensure that in determining such policy, the decision-makers have at their disposal information on which to take their decisions.

2. Misunderstandings have clearly arisen following the release of the paper. However, it was never the Austrian Presidency's intention to call into question the future of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The revised paper, which was officially forwarded to the European Parliament on 7 October 1998, has made this clear. It recommends a restructuring of the protection system which takes account of developments and does not interfere with the Geneva Convention but supplements it with an additional model; this additional complementary mechanism would not involve any changes in the case of protection against persecution as defined in the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The integrity of the Geneva Convention is thus not compromised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3608/98

by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: EU development and cooperation policy after enlargement

Can the Commission inform Parliament as to whether or not it has formed a view on the impact of enlargement on the evolution of the EU's development and cooperation policy, and will it forward to Parliament any views which it has on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

The accession of the Central and East European countries will mark a historic milestone for the Community. Enlargement will certainly buttress the values associated with democracy, solidarity and development. Ultimately, the Commission believes that it will bring significant benefits to developing countries as the European market expands, purchasing power and demand in the new Member States increase and the new members adopt Community development policies (the "acquis").

In terms of the political priority accorded to the developing countries, the ambitious proposals for renewal of the Community's partnership with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the Commission's recent efforts to improve the way Community development aid is managed attest to the vigour of its continuing commitment, as does the ongoing active support for sustainable development in the ALA-MED countries (Latin America and the Mediterranean) and the associated economic cooperation facilities.

As regards the acquis, multilateral meetings have been held with the 11 candidates for accession. As part of the screening exercise with the 6 countries for which negotiations are open, the Commission presented the acquis in the external relations chapter, which covers the Community's commercial policy, its bilateral agreements, development policy and humanitarian aid.

Each of the countries stated that the obligations under the acquis in respect of development policy and humanitarian aid would be taken on at the accession, and that their contribution to the European development fund (EDF) would have to be negotiated.

The screening exercise was mainly an explanation of the Community's development policy, as most of the candidates for enlargement have no experience in this sector. Their major interest was in trade relations with developing countries, which they will have to take on at the date of accession. They considered that they would have no difficulties in giving preferential treatment to ACP countries, in adapting their scheme of generalized tariff preferences when they have one, or in adopting that of the Community. This would offer new trade opportunities for developing countries' exports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/98

by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Endangered bird species

The threat of extinction hovering over a large number of bird species in the EC is a universally known problem. Birds are essential to the balance and the future of the ecosystems which they inhabit, given that they are frequently responsible for pollination and the dispersal of seeds and fruit, as well as keeping insect numbers under control. It is estimated that three-quarters of the bird population is threatened by the progressive deterioration of their habitats, due largely to human activity.

Can the Commission provide information on the numbers of birds threatened in the EC, both as a whole and broken down by Member State, as well as in the applicant countries?

What instruments is the Commission making use of, apart from the special bird protection zones and Council Directive 79/409/EEC(1), to reduce the threats and pressures hanging over these species?

Has the Commission carried out studies of the state of the various bird populations under threat?

Is there any heading in the draft budget for the forthcoming year dedicated exclusively to the preservation of endangered bird species?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

Annex 1 to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the preservation of wild birds lists 181 species and sub-species of birds considered to be in danger or vulnerable within the territory of the Community. Scientific studies of European bird species are also useful to the Commission, in particular the study undertaken in 1994 by Birdlife, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), entitled "Birds in Europe - Their conservation status." This study highlights the status of species endangered throughout Europe, covering the Member States and the countries that have applied for accession.

Under the Life-Nature programme the Commission has in recent years co-financed bird species preservation projects. In awarding Life-Nature financing, priority has been given to the most endangered species or sub-species in accordance with the list compiled by the ORNIS Committee on the basis of the degree of endangerment of these species. The Commission has also co-financed the drawing-up of action plans for most of the bird species or sub-species on this list. These plans are an important technical instrument for taking the most appropriate preservation measures. They are also highly useful for the subsequent compilation of national plans and for the evaluation of measures forming part of projects submitted to obtain Life-Nature co-financing.

The action plans are also intended to monitor trends in populations of endangered bird species.

As in previous years the Life-Nature programme will also be available in 1999 for Community co-financing of bird species preservation projects.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.