ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3363/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Qualibat - French barrier to the freedom to provide services under public works contracts

When tenders are invited for public works, it is customary for the client and the contracting authority to ask candidates to provide certain information essential for the award of the contracts so that the quality of the services provided by the undertaking concerned may be determined.

This procedure, through fairly transparent by and large, is often extended by contracting authorities to include additional minimum requirements, such as the conformity of the undertaking's services with the qualification certificates issued by the French industrial association Qualibat (under the supervision of the Minister for Public Works). As foreign undertakings without a registered place of business in France are automatically excluded from the Qualibat qualification, they are at a major competitive disadvantage. Even though the Qualibat certificate is not, strictly speaking, compulsory for participation in a call for tenders, Luxembourg undertakings come up against a lack of transparency when faced with the opinions expressed by the contracting authorities. In practice, these undertakings have less room for manoeuvre when it comes to gaining access to public contracts in France.

Does the Commission know about these barriers to the freedom to provide services? What does it intend to do to prevent such barriers in the guise of quality guarantees from impeding the freedom to provide services?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member, a problem which is in fact double-sided.

If there are no European or international standards covering the field concerned by an invitation to tender, the contracting authority may refer to systems such as Qualibat or Qualiferlec, provided that it is clearly stated that these are indications and the authority accepts equivalent systems in other Member States on each occasion. In failing to observe these conditions, it is indeed in violation of Community regulations governing the freedom to provide services and the principle of mutual recognition which the Court of Justice has developed from these regulations.

When there are European or international standards covering the field concerned by an invitation to tender, the contracting authority is obliged to refer to them, pursuant to the Community Directives applying to the award of public contracts. The authority is also, however, obliged to accept the validity of equivalent qualification certificates issued in other Member States, in accordance with the afore-mentioned principle of mutual recognition.

The Commission has referred this matter to the Court of Justice (case C-225/98 Commission v. France, currently pending).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3889/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: EU tropical forestry sourcebook

In November 1998, Members of the European Parliament received from the Commission a copy of a 400-page sourcebook on EU aid to tropical forestry printed on art paper in A4 format.

Can the Commission confirm that the EU tropical forestry sourcebook was produced with recycled paper?

Does the Commission know how many trees were used to produce the entire edition of this publication?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The "EU Tropical Forestry Sourcebook", a joint publication of the Commission and the Overseas development institute, was produced entirely from sylvan coat - a recycled paper.

It is not possible to calculate how many trees were used as recycled paper uses pulp in a way which makes it very difficult to measure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Co-financing of European NGO projects in South Africa

Following developments in the political situation in the Republic of South Africa, European Union aid for it has for years been granted direct to public authorities, undertakings, popular organisations etc.

Following a period in which European NGOs had no Community support instrument with which to implement projects in South Africa, the Commission announced some time ago that it was willing to again give them the possibility of doing so under budget line B7-6000 (co-financing of NGO projects).

1. Can European NGOs in fact submit South African development projects under budget line B7-6000?

2. Were development projects in fact financed in 1996, 1997 and 1998?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

The Commission confirms that European non governmental organizations (NGOs) may present projects to be implemented in South Africa for cofinancing under the NGO cofinancing budget line B7-6000.

No projects were financed under this budget line in 1996.

In 1997 there was a Community contribution of 499 153 euro to a project from an European NGO to support self-help groups in rural areas of Kwazulu Natal Province. In 1998 three projects from European NGOs were supported with a total Community contribution of 861 920 euro in the areas of housing policy and construction, small enterprise development and literacy for the aged.

Eleven projects introduced by 10 European NGOs for a total of 4,5 million euro are under appraisal for decision in 1999 in the areas of youth, peace building, vocational training, gender advocacy, rural self help and support for small businesses.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3165/98

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Benefits for frontier workers interrupting their careers

A female frontier worker employed in Germany can apply for a childcare allowance and childcare leave in Germany even if she lives in Belgium. However, there is a problem for frontier workers from Germany who are employed in Belgium and who apply for a career break to look after their children. If the person in question lived in Belgium she would receive a direct payment from the employment office in Belgium for this career interruption. Since the person in question lives in Germany, however, she does not receive this benefit.

Is this not a violation of the freedom of movement of workers within the Community or of the application of social security schemes to workers moving within the Community?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problem of frontier working in Belgium but resident in another Member State and of their entitlement to Belgian family benefits in the event of a career break.

The Commission has contacted the Belgian Government in order to find out the reason why the Belgian authorities refuse to pay such benefits.

Once it receive the Belgian Government's reply, the Commission will decide what further action to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3664/98

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

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Counterfeiting and piracy

On 22 October 1998 the Commission announced the publication of a Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market, with which it launched wide-ranging consultations on the matter with interested parties in the Member States.

In the Commission's view, what impact have these practices had on the EU economy?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3550/98

by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Council

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Threatened monuments of Kosovo

An increasing number of reports are appearing in the international press about the risk of a terrible disaster befalling the extremely important monuments of Kosovo: Roman monuments, Christian monasteries with rare manuscripts and icons, Muslim temples of exceptional architectural value etc.

In reply to a question on this subject, the Commission answered that it was not within its terms of reference and referred to the Council.

Will the Council, therefore, say whether it is apprised of the matter and whether it intends to examine the possibility of intervening, e.g. by sending a team of experts to assess the situation or making representations to the relevant authorities in the area?

Reply

(9 March 1999)

1. Article 128 of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates, inter alia, that:

"The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture [...]."

Implementation of this provision by the Community, action by which in the cultural sphere is aimed solely at supporting and supplementing action by the Member States, requires a proposal from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Since no such proposal concerning the question raised by the Honourable Member has been put to the Parliament and the Council, they cannot act officially in this context.

2. The Council is, however, aware of the threats to the historical heritage in Kosovo. The question of the protection of sites and monuments of great cultural and/or religious value has been tackled on several occasions by the European Union in its proposals on the future status of Kosovo, in particular in the context of the Contact Group. The Council hopes that these representations will help towards a resolution of the present crisis and the safeguarding of Kosovo's historic monuments.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3753/98

by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 1998)

Subject: Expenditure on information and communication activities in the UK

Following the reply to Written Question P-3013/98(1) given to me by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission on 18 November 1998, would the Commission provide a further detailed breakdown of the 1998 budget allocation of ECU 3,3 million for information and communication activities for the UK, including administrative costs, publications, hospitality, etc.?

Would the Commission also supply a further breakdown of how exactly the indicative expenditure for information and communication activities in Wales of ECU 116 500 in 1997 and ECU 39 450 in 1998 was spent?

Would the Commission explain why there was such a large reduction in expenditure on information and communication activities in the UK between 1997 and 1998?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The ECU 3,3 million budget of the Commission Representation in London for 1998 to which the Honourable Member refers breaks down as follows: public opinion analysis (ECU 135 464), dissemination of information (ECU 639 382), direct communication activities (ECU 292 586), communication activities via civil society (ECU 61 381), public relations (ECU 328 000), support (ECU 509 768) and communication activities via relays (ECU 1 341 009). This last item breaks down into the Europe service contract (ECU 777 329, education (ECU 553 353) and the public information relay factfile (ECU 11 327).

The above figures cover the Commission's representation activities throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This also covers publications, the national relay network, storage, distribution and the mobile information unit. In addition, since Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also have their own Offices, resources are earmarked for them for targeted policy and information activities. Expenditure for Wales in 1998 (in ecus; figures for 1997 shown in brackets) breaks down as follows: direct communication activities 13 691 (86 486), communication activities via civil society 5 000 (-), communication activities via relays (education) 43 265 (39 044), public relations 8 700 (1 608), support 1 700 (2 000) and dissemination of information (1997 budget subheading) 0 (1 710). This gives a total for 1998 of 72 356 (1997-130 848).

The difference between expenditure in 1997 and 1998 referred to by the Honourable Member is accounted for by the preparations for the UK Council Presidency, at which time more prominence is naturally given to the image of the Community. This entails a significant increase in the number and type of tasks undertaken by the Commission Representation during the Presidency. In terms of the budget, some appropriations were granted in 1997 but disbursed in 1998.

(1) See page 22.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/98

by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Right to ban imports of meat produced with regular use of antibiotics

Sweden has so far been allowed to retain its exemption banning the use of growth-promoting antibiotics in fodder.

Does Sweden have the right, however, to ban imports of meat produced with regular use of antibiotics?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

It is true that under Annex XV to the Act of Accession Sweden is authorised continue to apply its legislation in force before accession until 31 December 1998 in the case of the ban on the use of a number of additives, including antibiotics, in animal feed. Nevertheless, in view of similar reports from scientists and from international and national organisations on the development of resistance to antimicrobial agents, the Commission has asked the Scientific Steering Committee to look into this question using a multidisciplinary approach. The Commission will propose any measures it considers necessary in the light of the Committee's scientific advice.

The Act of Accession specifies that "these derogations may not have any effect on the free movement of animal products of the Community". Sweden may not therefore prohibit imports of meat produced from animals whose feed contained antibiotics authorised by Council Directive 70/524/CEE of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1).

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/98

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Meat production standards

What proposals does the Commission have to ensure that the United Kingdom's standards for meat production are imposed on meat imported from outside the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

Standards for meat production were harmonised in the Community by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and consolidating Directive 64/433/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat to extend it to the production and marketing of fresh meat(1).

Community requirements for imports of fresh meat from third countries were laid down in Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries(2). This Directive requires imports of meat to comply with Community requirements.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3731/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Breach of Community directives on working conditions

The Works Council at Andersen B.P.M. Ellas claims that working conditions are in breach of at least two Community directives on health and safety in the workplace and also accuses the company of failing to pay allowances to which the workers are entitled.

Workers are showing symptoms of overwork, constant sickness and breakdowns owing to stress; there is only token compliance with the provisions of Directives 89/391/EEC(1) and 75/117/EEC(2) or International Labour Convention 135. Furthermore, there are anomalies in the payment of allowances to workers (e.g. the bonus of 10 % of the basic rate for working on screens is not paid to all the workers who are entitled to it), which creates justifiable bitterness and unrest among the staff.

Is the Commission aware of the above company's failure to comply with the directives and what steps will it take to prompt the Greek authorities into action to enforce Community legislation in all companies operating in Greece, including Andersen B.P.M. Ellas?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Commission has recently had a considerable amount of mail about the position of people working for Andersen B.P.M. Ellas (S.A.) and this is now being studied.

The Commission will ensure Community law is correctly applied, by virtue of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Draft directive on "Food for special medical purposes" and ethical marketing of infant milk

Directives 91/321/EEC(1) and 92/52/EEC(2) are the result of tireless efforts by the European Parliament to ensure that infant milk is ethically marketed. Their existence has up to now prevented any repetition of tragic events of the past.

The draft directive currently in preparation (Doc. III/53/18/98 Rev -1) places the safeguards provided by the above two directives in jeopardy. Including infant formula and milk in a directive dealing with a great variety of products whose composition is only approximately defined opens the way for the industries in question to circumvent the advertising and labelling restrictions set out in the above directives.

Does the Commission share this view? What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the new directive from being used as a pretext for circumventing European legislation already in force?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

The draft directive to which the Honourable Member refers covers products for special medical purposes. These, according to the definition included in the draft, are products for " ... feeding of patients with a limited, impaired or disturbed capacity to take, digest, absorb, metabolise or excrete ordinary foodstuffs or certain nutrients contains therein or metabolites, ...". They are not comparable to ordinary infant formulae covered by directives 91/321/EEC and 92/52/EEC which are intended for normal healthy infants.

Foods for special medical purposes are necessary for the exclusive or partial feeding of infants with medically- determined nutrient requirements. Failure to meet these requirements may have grave and sometimes fatal consequences for these infants. It is therefore very important that information about existence and use of these products is available. The draft directive also includes the necessary provisions for the safe and appropriate use of these products and imposes a mandatory statement on the label that the products must be used under medical supervision.

The Commission accordingly takes the view that it would not be appropriate to impose the same restrictions on advertising and labelling of these products as those applicable to products intended for use by infants in good health.

(1) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35.

(2) OJ L 179, 1.7.1992, p. 129.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3492/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Pollution of surface water

The drainage systems in built-up areas are often not designed to convey surface water, or water from recent rainfall, to water treatment plants. As a result, these waters flow into rivers, streams and lakes.

To my knowledge there are currently no laws or provisions requiring these waters to be treated before they enter waterways.

In view of the fact that surface water and water from recent rainfall are more polluted than sewage, since they contain over 2010 exhaust gases and heavy metals, can the Commission say what measures it intends to adopt in this area?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

Rainwater on impermeable urban surfaces can be collected either separately from the domestic and industrial waste water of the built-up area (this is known as a separate sewer system) or in the same sewer as the waste water (a combined system). Two-thirds of urban areas have combined systems. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1) requires Member States to provide for the collection and treatment of the mixture of waste water and run-off rainwater in a combined sewer system. However, given that it is not possible in practice to construct collecting systems and treatment plants in a way such that all waste water can be treated during situations such as unusually heavy rainfall, the Directive lays down that Member States must decide on measures to limit pollution from storm water overflows. Such measures could be based on dilution rates or capacity in relation to dry weather flow, or could specify a certain acceptable number of overflows per year.

As regards direct discharges of run-off water from separate sewer systems, the proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(2), in providing that account should be taken of all major sources of pollution in each catchment area, will make it possible to regulate such discharges.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2991/98

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

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Future of the specific supply regime for the Canary Islands

As the Commission will be aware, the existing specific supply regime for the Canary Islands, applying pursuant to Regulation 191/91(1) and to Poseican (the programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands), has undergone a degree of evolution since its introduction, in line with its function of compensating for the higher prices arising from geographical remoteness from the supplier markets.

However, numerous shortcomings have been detected in the administration of this crucial mechanism, which will have to be corrected in the future.

These include:

- unfair competition existing in the case of certain products subsidised for import purposes, as opposed to their local equivalents, which suffer because, despite their higher production costs, they do not receive price compensation, although this would put them on an equal footing with the competing products (this applies to dairy products, livestock products, wine, etc);

- the reduction in aid levels for certain products, resulting in additional costs to the consumer and the processing industry;

- the lack of controls over the compensation mechanism for operators, which has led to numerous cases of fraud.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to deal with these problems in the coming years, and to reform the regulatory arrangements?

Does the Commission not agree that it is essential, as a matter of urgency, to reform those aspects of the specific supply regime which penalise local production by obstructing its development?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

The Commission recently commissioned an independent consultant to write an evaluation report on the agricultural component of the Poseican programme. It will be finalised in the next few months. In addition, the Commission, in partnership with the Spanish authorities, is currently drawing up an analysis of the measures carried out under that agricultural component. In the light of its conclusions, the Commission will present to the Council and Parliament a report accompanied, if necessary, by any adjustment measures needed better to achieve the objectives of Poseican. I would draw the Honourable Member¢s attention to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-327/98 from Mr Souchet(2).

(1) OJ L 20, 26.1.1991, p. 32.

(2) OJ C 304, 20.10.1998.