ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/98 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Inspection of loading weights in the container transport sector

Past experience with inspections in the road haulage industry shows that persons and firms engaged in this sector have no compunction about clearly exceeding the permissible loading weight of vehicles. This is particularly true of articulated trailers used to transport standard containers. Inspections have recorded several cases of overloading by almost 200% of the permissible overall weight. This is due to the fact that the only reference point is the standardised size of the loading unit and to the haulier's resulting lack of awareness as to its contents. The practice of overloading endangers all road users in the EU since overloaded lorries are the cause of serious traffic accidents.

1. Is the Commission familiar with this problem?

2. If so, in what way has it incorporated possible solutions to this problem in its thoughts on enhancing road safety and/or how does it plan to do so in future?

3. If not, does it also see tougher checks on compliance with weight limits as a means of switching the carriage of containers from road to rail and inland waterway?

4. How does it view the proposal to equip the lifting equipment at transshipment centres ('spreaders') with weighing mechanisms in order to ensure compliance with the weight limits for the loading of standard containers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1998)

1. The Commission is aware that the overloading of vehicles, especially articulated lorries, is, regrettably, a common problem.

2. The enforcement of weight limits is rightly one of national competence. The Honourable Member may recall that in 1993 the Commission brought forward a proposal for a Council directive laying down maximum authorised weights and dimensions for road vehicles over 3.5 tonnes circulating within the Community ((OJ C 38, 8.2.1994. )), which would have simplified the rules leading to better and easier enforcement. However, this was not adopted by the Council.

3. Whilst the Commission would agree with the Honourable Member that more stringent checks on compliance with weight limits could have some effect on modal shift, it is the responsibility of Member States to enforce their own legislation on vehicle weights.

4. The Commission can support the Honourable Member's suggestion of the greater use of weighing devices, such as in equipment for lifting containers, to control the weight of containers. However, the Honourable Member will be aware that the total weight of a container is not the only issue of importance. If the weight of a load is not distributed correctly it can result in overloaded axles on an articulated lorry even if the total weight of the container is acceptable. In this respect it should be noted that overloaded axles cause considerable road damage. Nevertheless, as already indicated, it is for Member States to undertake the appropriate checks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/98 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Eavesdropping by MI6 and Echelon

1. How does the Commission secure its confidential internal communications (e.g. by telephone, fax, telex and e-mail) against interception by outsiders?

2. In view of the reports about eavesdropping by MI6 and Echelon, does the Commission consider it appropriate to secure its internal communications more effectively?

3. In the light of the evidence concerning Echelon's random interception of communications and the use of the information gathered by means of it for purposes other than that of protecting State security, are there not strong arguments in favour of allowing members of the public, organizations and businesses to use strong encryption methods?

4. What steps will the Commission take vis-à-vis the British Government and/or the Council?

5. Does the Commission have the power to make proposals for binding agreements between the Member States prohibiting them from spying on one another and the EU institutions, instituting strict rules concerning interception of the communications of members of the public, organizations, businesses and government bodies, permitting such interception only for precisely defined security purposes, and guaranteeing procedures for independent judicial supervision, proper consideration of complaints and parliamentary control? If so, will the Commission make such proposals?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1998)

1 and 4. The sending of confidential information by these open means of communication is prohibited by internal Commission decisions on the secure handling of classified information.

2. The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to her Written Question E-1039/98 ((See page 55. )). It is normal practice for the Commission to keep its security arrangements under constant review.

3. In a communication to the Parliament and other institutions ((COM(97) 503. )), the Commission has already given its view on the need for security and privacy in electronic communication.

5. The Commission does not have such power according to its competence as defined by the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Programme for improving honey production in Greece

Greece has submitted to the Commission a programme for improving the production and marketing of honey in 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) 2300/97 ((OJ L 319, 21.11.1997, p. 4. )).

This programme will be implemented by various bodies, organizations and apicultural cooperatives.

The Federation of Greek Apicultural Associations has addressed a letter to the Commission protesting about the way in which the implementation of the programme has been shared out among the various participants.

Since the Federation of Greek Apicultural Associations is a dynamic organization with many members and is financially solvent and reliable, will the Commission say: Has it investigated the substance of the allegations made by the Federation of Greek Apicultural Associations, and if so, what does it intend to do to give it a larger say in implementing the programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1998)

On 15 December 1997, the Member States communicated their draft national programmes to improve the production and the marketing of honey in accordance with Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2300/97 on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 758/98 ((OJ L 105, 4.4.1998. )).

Accordingly, Greece notified to the Commission the list of representative organisations and beekeeping cooperatives which collaborated with the Greek authorities on drawing up the programme. The Federation of Greek Apicultural Associations was included in this list.

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 ((OJ L 173, 1.7.1997. )) stipulates that programmes shall be drawn up in close cooperation with the representative organisations and beekeeping cooperatives.

The Commission cannot therefore give these organisations a larger say in implementing the programme because Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 provides only for participation in drawing up the programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States' medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve 'positions close to balance or in surplus'. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.

But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Portugal if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 ((OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. )), Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies ((OJ L 209, 2.8.1997. )), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (2). The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Portugal had a general government deficit of 3.0% of gross domestic product (GDP) and in 1993 the deficit was 6.1% of GDP. This situation led to a Council decision on 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Portugal (Article 104c (6) of the EC Treaty). In the period covered by the Honourable Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, Portugal budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c of the EC Treaty which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/98 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (19 May 1998)

Subject: Ethnic minorities and the European Institutions

What plans does the Commission have to apply to ethnic minorities programmes similar to those it has implemented to overcome discrimination against women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1557/98, E-1558/98 and E-1559/98 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (15 June 1998)

All staff recruitment takes place in accordance with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, which specifically states that recruitment must be on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Member States, without reference to race, political, ethical or religious belief, gender or sexual orientation, and irrespective of marital status or family situation.

Consequently, the Commission has not needed to introduce positive action programmes to increase the number of people from ethnic minorities working in its departments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/98 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: EU assistance for research in the Bayerisch-Schwaben region

Can the Commission provide the following information on the level of EU assistance for research and development (R& D) in the Bayerisch-Schwaben region in 1997:

1. How much assistance was provided for R& D in Bayerisch-Schwaben in 1997?

2. How much Community assistance was provided for R& D in comparable regions of other Member States in 1997, and for what measures?

3. How much assistance, broken down by types of contractor (universities, research institutes, SMEs, large-scale industry, etc.), was provided for R& D in the various German Länder in 1997?

4. How many applications for R& D assistance, broken down by types of programme and EU Member States, were received in 1997?

5. For what percentage of the applicants for R& D assistance did SMEs account in the Community and Germany in 1997?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1998)

1,3,4 and 5. Since the answer to these points includes tables, and details on the research funds granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), it is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

2. The Commission considers it invidious to make comparisons between regions as such data do not reflect the real benefits a region can draw from Community research programmes. The main advantage of participation in multi-partner and transnational programmes is that each partner has access to all the results of the project in which it is involved, whatever funding it receives from the Community. A further major benefit is the creation and development of research infrastructure at European level (e.g. networks).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1183/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Rejection of proposal by the Commission

On 18 February 1998, the Commission informed the European Centre for the Arts (EUARCE) that the proposal it had submitted under the Raphael programme entitled "Music and Poetry in the Orthodox Era - the Patriarchal Style of Byzantine Chant, a Lexicography of Byzantine Music", had been rejected by DG X/C.4.

It should be noted that the proposal dealt with the extremely exacting and internationally recognized and commended task of identifying and interpreting the actual codes used in composing Byzantine chants, which is taking place under the auspices of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew. The Centre which has submitted the proposal is one of the most respected in Greece and has never received funds from the Community budget. The decision to reject this proposal is extremely strange and the justification is conspicuous by its absence.

1. Can the Commission explain in detail the grounds for rejecting the above proposal?

2. Which institutions or centres have received funding under the Raphael programme? In which Member States? What were the subjects of their proposals and what were the precise sums donated?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there were 511 submissions within the framework of the particular Raphael action in which the "European Art Centre" presented its proposal and that only 43 projects were selected mainly due to the very limited budgetary resources allocated to the Raphael programme. This was very clearly stated in the reply of 18 February 1998 given to the unsuccessful applicants. The selection of the projects was made on the basis of the recommendations of a group of independent experts as well as with the approval of the Raphael committee, which consists of representatives of the national authorities from all the Member States.

Furthermore, in a recent reply (25 March 1998) to a complaint by the applicant organisation the Commission explained that despite the positive appreciation of the project in question by a group of independent experts, it was not possible to support financially their proposal as well as many others due to the very limited available resources.

As to the selected projects and the amounts allocated to each one of them, the relevant documentation is forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/98

by Rolf Berend (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Funding of Weimar's reign as European City of Culture in 1999

In 1999, Weimar in Thuringia will be the European City of Culture. To date, the City of Culture scheme has been financed through the Kaleidoscope programme. Weimar will be an exception in that the Kaleidoscope programme finishes in December 1998. It is uncertain how Weimar's reign as European City of Culture will be funded. The City of Weimar and the Land of Thuringia need clarification of the financing arrangements soon.

Will Weimar's reign as European City of Culture be financed as part of a pilot project and, if so, how, and how much funding will be allocated? Or is it planned in this case to extend the Kaleidoscope programme on a one-off basis?

When can a final decision be expected?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 1998)

Without prejudice to the decisions which will eventually be taken on this matter by the Community institutions and the budgetary authority in particular, the Commission is able to confirm that it is planning to continue in 1999 the financial support traditionally granted by the Community to the "European City of Culture" project.

As regards the basis on which this grant will be paid, the Commission is proposing to use the preparatory stage of the framework programme on culture, currently in preparation within the Commission and scheduled to go before Parliament and the Council in May 1998.

An announcement on the exact amount of the Community grant to the "European City of Culture" will be made, as usual, at the beginning of the budget exercise for the year in question. In view of the financial perspective for the culture budget, however, it is important to bear in mind that the Community's contribution to this event will necessarily be largely symbolic.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In Parliament's report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 - C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000), the Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as food, drink, tobacco and furniture, outperform their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

How do these sectors perform by comparison with the USA?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament's report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 - C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as communications, to which access is restricted.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1248/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Animal passports

Can the Commission clarify whether animal passports are utilized in other Member States, and where this is the case, who bears the cost, and approximately how much is this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 1998)

In accordance with Article 3(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products(1), animal passports form part of the identification and registration system of bovine animals.

Under Community legislation, animal passports are only foreseen for animals of the bovine species and are a compulsory element of the identification and registration system of bovine animals in all Member States.

Regarding the question as to who bears the cost, reference should be made to Article 9 of the same Regulation, where it is mentioned that "Member States may charge to keepers... the cost of the systems referred to in Article 3...". In addition, reference should be made to Annex C, Chapter I of Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC(2) (amended and consolidated) on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls where it is foreseen as a general rule to finance controls at origin and that a fee has to be charged. However, the scope and the level of the fee, the detailed rules for its application, including in particular the determination as to who is liable to pay, and any exceptions have not yet been fixed. Within this framework, it is up to Member States to define such provisions using their national rules.

Regarding the cost of such an exercise, the Commission does not have the relevant data.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0980/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Protection of children's health from dangerous toys

Research carried out by Greenpeace reveals that a large proportion of the toys designed for young children in the Union are made of PVC from which toxic phthalic compounds and heavy metals (lead, cadmium, etc) can enter a child's sensitive bodily system. The long-term effects are accumulative and cause abnormalities, even in the reproductive system. Concentrations of cadmium 460 times above US limits were detected on the surface of toys as a result of PVC degradation.

What measures will the Commission take to protect young children's health from hazardous toxic substances in toys and when will it lay down limits for the heavy metals used in PVC?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1998)

Detailed limits concerning the maximum daily bioavailability of certain substances, including lead and cadmium, are laid down in Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys(1).

More specifically, these (daily) limits as set out in Annex II, point II.3.2 are 0.6 μg (micrograms) for cadmium and 0.7 μg for lead.

Moreover, toys "must in all cases comply with the relevant Community legislation relating to certain categories of products or to the prohibition, restriction of use or labelling of certain dangerous substances and preparations" (Annex II, point II.3.1. According to the Directive, Member States have to take all steps necessary to ensure that toys cannot be placed on the market unless they meet the essential requirements set out in Annex II, and to withdraw from the market, prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of toys that might jeopardize the safety or health of the consumer or third parties. Member States must inform the Commission immediately when such measures are taken.

Concerning the phthalic compounds mentioned in the Honourable Member's question, reference should be made to the answers already provided by the Commission to questions H-114/97 by Mr Spencer during question time at Parliament's March 1997 part-session(2), H-423/97 by Mr Pimenta during question time at Parliament's June 1997 part-session(3), written questions 2474/97 and 2475/97 by Mrs Breyer(4) and H-921/97 during question time at Parliament's December 1997 part-session(5) by Mr Fitzsimons.

Furthermore, the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment is looking into the issue of phthalates and the Commission is assessing the first opinion of this committee, with a view to possible short, medium or long-term action relating to this matter.

(1) OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

(2) Debates of the Parliament (March 1997).

(3) Debates of the Parliament (June 1997).

(4) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.

(5) Debates of the Parliament (December 1997).