ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0203/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries

When customs stamps in non-Community countries are changed, the intervention bodies frequently withhold export refunds and guarantees, and European exporters are thus made responsible for events outside their control.

Will the Commission ensure that the responsibility for recording changes to official customs stamps in non-Community countries as they occur is borne by the authorities alone?

Will the Commission establish a set procedure with all non-Community countries for which there is an entitlement to refunds to ensure that all alterations in their customs stamps are reported to a central unit in Brussels for subsequent notification to the intervention bodies in the individual Member States?

Does the Commission believe that the actual usefulness of customs stamps which can be stolen, copied or illicitly used in other ways as a means of verification, is in reasonable proportion to their economic importance?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

When the rate of the refund is differentiated according to the destination of the products exported, Community legislation requires the recipient of the refund to provide proof that the product in question was imported into the non-member country for which the differentiated rate of refund was fixed. In a large number of cases, this proof is provided by the customs documents of importation issued by the various countries whose authenticity is usually validated by the seals and signatures of the customs authorities of those countries.

National paying agencies normally have a compendium of specimens of the most usual customs seals. When they find changes in the seals, they take steps to check the validity of the new seal in order to verify the validity of the documents provided to support the application for payment of the refunds.

The Commission does not intend to create a centralised catalogue of the forms and customs stamps used in the customs procedures of non-member countries. Application of the Community rules on the payment of export refunds is a matter for the national paying agencies, which have considerable experience of this matter and maintain regular contacts with the customs authorities of non-member countries.

Such a catalogue could be drawn up by the World Customs Organisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: State aid and the coal industry

Can the Commission confirm that its examination of the merger between Ruhrkohle AG Saarbergewerke AG and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH in 1998 has revealed that state aid was granted by the German Government? What steps is the Commission taking to secure repayment of this state aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2000)

The Commission can confirm that it has been examining the possibility that non-notified state aid may have been involved in the purchase of the publicly-owned Saarbergwerke AG by the private sector company RAG Aktiengesellschaft (RAG AG).

As a result of these investigations, the Commission decided, on 18 January 2000, to send a letter of formal notice to the German government requesting it to provide in the month following receipt of the letter: a detailed and quantified economic evaluation of the risks involved for RAG AG in acquiring Saarbergwerke AG; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of each of the subsidiary companies in the Saarbergwerke AG group at the time of the merger together with the expected future cash flows; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of the synergies available to Deutsche Steinkohle AG in acquiring the coal producing activities of Saarbergwerke AG; a detailed commercial and financial evaluation of the synergies available to RAG AG in acquiring the non-coal producing activities of Saarbergwerke AG; and an explanation as to why the price of DEM 1, paid by RAG AG for Saarbergwerke AG, was not notified as state aid to the coal sector as defined under Article 1 paragraphs 2 and 4 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry(1) if Germany considered this to be risk insurance for RAG AG.

The letter will also be published in the Official journal with an invitation to third parties to submit their comments within a month of the date of publication. Any observations received will then be forwarded to the German government for their reaction.

On the basis of these replies, the Commission will then take a final decision on whether or not non-notified state aid was involved in the acquisition.

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1531/00

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Protection of families and children

In its resolution A4-0004/1999(1) of 28 January 1999 on the protection of families and children the European Parliament recommended, in order to combat child and maternal mortality, the introduction of a European perinatal epidemiological network composed of regional perinatal surveillance units within each country and of a common European perinatal database.

Could the Commission state what action it has taken, or intends to take, to put this proposal into practice?

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 79.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1530/00, E-1531/000, E-1532/00, E-1533/00, E-1534/00, E-1535/00, E-1536/00 and E-1537/00 given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 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-1165/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority

The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety.

The Commission wishes to clarify and enhance the existing WTO framework (section 108). The precautionary principle must be respected in the field of food safety. The main requirement is to devise a standard methodology for applying this principle. Measures taken by other countries to refuse EU products are to be studied in the context of the opportunities afforded by the SPS Agreement. The EU wants to accede to the Codex Alimentarius and the International Office of Epizootics.

Does the Commission regard the existing rules of the SPS Agreement as insufficient for adequate application of the precautionary principle? If so, what shortcomings does the Commission identify in the Agreement? What proposals will the Commission make to remedy them? If not, will the Commission nevertheless make proposals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2000)

The Commission believes that the provisions of Article 5(7) of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) reflect the application of the precautionary principle. This article does not provide for the preparation of guidelines for its application.

However, with regard to food safety, the Codex Alimentarius, whose standards are taken into consideration by the SPS, took on the responsibility, at the Community's request, for defining the precautionary principle and drawing up guidelines for its application.

The various reports of the Standing Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation have shown that this paragraph does not exhaust the application of the precautionary principle in the SPS Agreement and that it must not be considered independently of the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 thereof. Although the SPS Agreement could be modified to classify better the conditions for the application of the precautionary principle, in the view of the Commission this is probably not necessary, since the same result may be achieved by developing binding guidelines for the application of Article 5(7) which would certainly allow for the correct and non-protectionist use of the precautionary principle in the future.

The Community presented a Communication on the Application of the Precautionary Principle at the meeting of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the WTO in March 2000 in an attempt to stimulate a discussion with its partners and to pave the way for a joint approach in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1235/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject: Bristol Austria Dipl. Ing K. J. Madden v Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H.

Bristol Austria Dipl Ing K. J. Madden is a small company registered under the owner's name: Mr Ken J Madden. This company is a consultancy for British companies wishing to export to Central Europe, and deals particularly with Bristol Uniforms Ltd, which supplies firebrigade uniforms to the Austrian firebrigade. Mr Madden's company has a website address: bristol-austria.com.

An Austrian producer known as Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H. has insisted that Mr Madden's company change its website address from bristol-austria.com to something not including the word Austria. Mr Madden's company has until 6 April to comply with this request or to defend the action. Yet the website address does not indicate that the company is anything other than a proprietorship.

Pfeifer is virtually a monopoly in Austria, being one of two Austrian producers of protective fire clothing. In 1997 they were sued by the Austrian Feuerwehrverband (Fire Brigade Association) for falsely using the registered logo of the Verband together with a subsidiary company name, and more recently have launched a new fire-coat onto the European market which BTTG (the UK's premier test house) and two separate German test houses have found after extensive testing to be 32 % under the required standard.

Will the Commission look into this matter and determine whether or not Pfeifer Ges.m.b.H. has been acting illegally in trying to force Mr Madden's company to change its website address?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The Honourable Member's question appears on the basis of the information submitted to relate to a domain name dispute under the.COM top level domain.

The registration of domain names within.COM is the responsibility of the company Network Solutions Inc. (NSI). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has put in place a uniform dispute resolution procedure that may be applied to all trademark-related disputes arising from registration made in.COM.

Under the policy set by ICANN, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, arbitration or court action, before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name (see http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm). Disputes which arise from abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of the trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

The Commission is not competent to decide on such cases. It might be necessary for the Honourable Member's constituent to seek legal advice from a specialist in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: BSE in France

In view of the findings of the Commission's veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO 1058/99) will the Commission undertake a follow-up investigation into current practices there, including (a) ineffective examination of BSE suspect cases, (b) re-admission of suspect cases and fallen stock into the human food chain, (c) levels of contamination of cattle feed by meat and bone meal, and will he place on record correspondence with the French Ministry of Agriculture subsequent to Mr Bernard Vallat's letter of 24 November 1999?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The mission report, together with the comments of the French authorities on the draft report, have already been published on the Internet.

The Commission's standard procedure for follow-up to veterinary mission findings is to give the Member State the opportunity to provide details of the action taken and planned in relation to the recommendations contained in the mission report. In the case of the veterinary mission to France (DG SANCO/1058/1999) the Commission has requested a reply from the French authorities. The Commission will take whatever follow-up action is necessary, in the light of this reply.

Follow-up action will apply to all deficiencies observed, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring, readmission of suspect cases into the food chain and implementation of the meat and bone meal (MBM) ban. The mission team found that fallen stock (i.e. animals which died on the farm) are excluded from BSE surveillance, but it found no evidence that fallen stock enters the human food chain in France.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: EU Delegation in Havana, Cuba

Given that the EU's representation in Cuba is merely a subsidiary of the Commission Delegation in Mexico, and that Cuba both participated as an observer in the entire post-Lomé Convention negotiating process and very recently stated its wish to sign the Agreement which will replace the Fourth Lomé Convention, is the Commission taking any steps to possibly open a European Union Delegation in Havana?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

There are no extra human and financial resources foreseen for opening new delegations in the 2000 budget. The available resources are committed to the existing external representations of the Commission.

There is a case to be made for the opening of a delegation in Cuba for the reasons stated in the question. However, a similar case could also be made for a number of other countries where the Community has important economic or political interests.

Any opening of a new delegation would have to be the result of redeployment of staff. Priorities will have to be set. They would need to be decided in the framework of the exercise which is under way to assess the needs of the external service over the lifetime of this Commission. A communication to the Council and the Parliament on the development of the external service, the best use of its existing means and, if it is found to be necessary, proposals for extra resources should be presented later in the year 2000.

Thus, while the Commission has the matter under review it can not give any undertaking on the opening of a delegation in Cuba or elsewhere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Ability of Council to answer Parliamentary questions on time

Can the Council state why I did not receive an answer to my written question on Tax Discussions (P-2219/99) (which was submitted on 5 November 1999 and which should have been answered in December) until 4 February 2000?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00

(10 July 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not bound by the deadlines mentioned, as these ensue from Rule 44(5), (6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

It would, however, stress that with a view to better collaboration with the European Parliament in this area the Council has acted swiftly to introduce a series of internal measures enabling it to reply to written questions within two months. In this context its preparatory bodies have defined a procedure for examining questions intended to strike the requisite balance between this objective and the essential need to provide replies of the highest quality possible after consultation with the competent departments and an exchange of views at Council level.

Over the years various factors have made it harder to keep this balance, with adverse consequences on the promptness of replies, examples being the significant increase in the number of written questions put to the Council, which should not be under-estimated, the emergence of questions in areas which call for in-depth study, or the topical nature of certain issues which on occasion require some time for Members to be given genuine updates.

The Council does, in any case, share the concern expressed by the Honourable Member and reaffirms its commitment to providing, in all circumstances, the most appropriate and fullest replies possible to written questions put to it. It will reflect on solutions to optimise the current procedures for studying questions, in compliance with the requirements listed above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Food Authority

During the Committee on the Environment's question-and-answer session of 23 February 2000 on the proposed establishment of a Food Authority, Commissioner Byrne made it clear that he believes that the proposed authority should not deal solely with food standards, but also should address nutritional and dietary issues. He added the rider, so that the Food Authority is not merely telling scare stories from an ivory tower. Furthermore, Commissioner Byrne stated that the Food Authority should draw on advisory research that may have been commissioned by outside organisations in the Member States.

With these points in mind, could the Commission please comment on this obvious opportunity to address positively the issue of fortification. More particularly, does the Commission support the need to authorise and regulate disease-risk reduction information on food packs providing customers with positive health-related information about food?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

As mentioned in the white paper on food safety(1), adopted by the Commission on 12 January 2000, a proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on on fortified food is foreseen for September 2000.

At present, the Commission is studying the issue of food fortification in depth with a view to preparing such a proposal. It is difficult at this stage to inform the Honourable Member about the proposal's orientation as work is still in a preliminary phase.

Regarding the views of the Commission on claims concerning reduction of risk of disease, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-232/00 by Mrs Thomas-Mauro(2).

(1) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/00

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Direct aid to the farming sector

José Manuel Silva, the Commissioner Director-General of Agriculture and Rural Development recently took part in the presentation of a university study claiming that Galician agricultural productivity is a mere 16 % of the European average. In statements reported in the Galician press, Mr Silva said that the Galician agricultural sector does not receive large quantities of direct aid, because its basic products, namely milk and meat, are subject to a market system rather than subsidy arrangements. What perverse mechanism is therefore responsible for the fact that Community subsidies, especially via the EAGGF guarantee, particularly benefit the richest areas and farming communities, to the detriment of others which, like Galicia, are perfectly capable of developing a multi-purpose agriculture really based on the land?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2321/00

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: European funding

How much money has been paid from European Union funds to the benefit of projects in the County of Hampshire, the City of Southampton, the City of Portsmouth and the County of the Isle of Wight over the last four years giving a breakdown by fund, project, year and area?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 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-0719/00

by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Accidents at work

Analysts and observers generally agree that, by definition, work is a risk. Obviously, the risk is greater in certain sectors than in others. Clearly, also, despite existing measures designed to prevent risks resulting in accidents, accidents do occur all too frequently.

National politicians with responsibility in this area recognise both the virtue of these laws, and the fact that they do not go far enough.

Job creation is a priority for the European Union. Those created must be quality jobs geared towards the aim of eliminating accidents at work.

Does the Commission plan to implement or coordinate new measures aimed at reducing the number of accidents at the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's view on the importance of the measures designed to protect the health and safety of workers in order to reduce the number of occupational accidents. The Commission's policy in this area has always pursued this objective.

The directives in the area of health and safety at work that have been adopted by the Council on the basis of proposals from the Commission constitute a minimum foundation of measures for protecting workers from occupational accidents and occupational diseases.

It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure appropriate monitoring and surveillance of the application of the national provisions that transpose these directives.

In order to facilitate the application of the directives and to help to reduce occupational accidents, the Commission initiates non-legislative measures, including the drafting of non-binding practical guides, whenever this is needed.

In this connection, the Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the activities of the Agency for Health and Safety at Work, and especially to the conference on health, safety and employability that was held in September 1999 in Bilbao. At this conference, mention was made of the links between exclusion from the labour market, employability, occupational rehabilitation, the culture of the protection of health and safety at work and equal opportunities, the adaptation of the working environment to man and the competitiveness of firms.

A copy of the conclusions of this conference is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.