ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Sale and manufacture of chewing tobacco in contravention of the directive

The self-governing Åland Islands (Finland) are not complying with the ban on chewing tobacco which is in force in the EU, but permit the sale of such tobacco on their own territory and on ferries between Finland and Sweden. The Åland Islands have not obtained a special authorisation from the Commission to continue selling chewing tobacco as Sweden has done. Monitoring the implementation of the directive is the task of the Commission. The tobacco on sale on the Islands and on ferries is produced in Sweden. It is public knowledge that production of chewing tobacco is beginning on the Islands for the purpose of sale on ferries.

When Sweden obtained its special exemption for the sale of chewing tobacco, it undertook that chewing tobacco produced and sold in Sweden would not be placed on the market in other Member States in which its sale was prohibited. This undertaking is being publicly broken, because Swedish chewing tobacco is on open sale on the Åland Islands and on ferries between Sweden and Finland. It has also been demonstrated by experience, as shown in the media, that it can easily be purchased (for example) from kiosks in Finland.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to halt the sale on the Finnish Åland Islands and elsewhere in Finland of chewing tobacco in contravention of the directive prohibiting its sale? What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that Sweden complies with the conditions of the exemption it obtained under the EU Treaty and ensures that Swedish chewing tobacco is no longer placed on the market in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The prohibition to place on the market tobacco for oral use which is provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products(1) is applicable to the entire territory of Finland.

The Commission has recently been informed by a complaint that this ban may not have been implemented in the Åland Islands. For this reason, the Commission will ask the Finnish Government to clarify whether the necessary legislation is in force in the Åland Islands so that the provision referred to above is correctly implemented.

The Commission will also inquire of the Swedish authorities on how they enforce the requirement to take all necessary measures to ensure that tobacco for oral use legally marketed in Sweden is not put on the market in the other Member States in accordance with Article 151 and Annex XV of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

(1) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (France)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in France have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in France have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01, E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01, E-1882/01, E-1883/01 and E-1884/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/01

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Economic value of voluntary work

Given that much of the work done by NGOs, particularly women's NGOs, is carried out by volunteers, why does the Commission attach no economic value to contributions in kind and in the form of voluntary work as part of Community projects covered by the fifth Community framework programme on equal opportunities for women and men?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to the fact that voluntary work carried out by members of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is not regarded as an eligible cost in projects to be funded by the Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005).

The Commission would like to stress that proper management of Community funds implies that it is possible to monitor the tasks actually carried out and the contributions from third parties to projects funded by the Community.

However, voluntary work, like contributions in kind generally, cannot be valued precisely. The Commission has therefore decided, partly at Parliament's request, to limit contributions in kind in the projects it subsidises. For this reason, contributions in kind are not accepted as eligible costs in projects funded by the Commission, unless the decisions relating to these projects provide for a derogation (in this case Council Decision 2001/51/EC of 20 December 2000 establishing a Programme relating to the Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)(1)).

(1) OJ L 17, 19.1.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Lost 16 million kronor

Messrs Perry Lux of Luxembourg were hired by ECHO to carry out three aid projects in Bosnia for a sum corresponding to 24 million Swedish kronor. The project fizzled out in a large-scale fraud case. The equivalent of some 16 million Swedish kronor disappeared.

What is the Commission doing to locate the missing money and is it giving serious consideration to ways of calling the officials responsible to account for their errors in connection with the fraud case?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Based on information obtained in March 1997 that four operational contracts totalling 4 million for humanitarian aid were suspicious, UCLAF launched an inquiry with controls on the spot in Luxembourg, Ireland and former Yugoslavia. The inquiry report concludes, among other things, that further inquiries are necessary by the national judicial authorities to establish the ultimate beneficiaries of funds which have not been traced to date.

As suggested by UCLAF ECHO has issued immediately a recovery order against Perry Lux Informatic for one of the four contracts. This recovery order was contested within a law suit filed in April 1998 in the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (T-132/98). Later on this company went bankrupt and the liquidators requested that the Court suspend the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of a penal procedure launched by the judicial authorities of Luxembourg. The Court accepted this request on 25 June 1999. The penal procedure is still ongoing and the Commission is defending the financial interests of the Community as a civil party in this procedure.

As far as the three other contracts which were concluded with two subsidiaries of Perry-Lux in Ireland: The two subsidiaries were already dissolved in 1996, before the UCLAF investigation started. The investigation has not enabled the Commission to identify, for example, a liquidator against whom a recovery could have been launched. Therefore, the Commission will defend the Communities' financial interests as described under 2 within the on-going penal procedure in these cases as well.

As concerns the disciplinary measures taken in relation to this matter, the Commission refers to the detailed answers it has already given in the framework of the discharge procedure for the general budget 1999 (Blak-report).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/01

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Electric shock weapons

Given the risk that the use of what are known as electro-shock weapons may breach the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, which require that the development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled, (Principle 3), what action is the Council taking to ensure compliance with that principle in relation to this type of weapon?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Member States consider that exports of certain non-military equipment which may be used for internal repression should be monitored by national authorities on the basis as regards civil goods of Community rules, in order to prevent equipment originating in the European Union from being used for acts which violate human rights.

For this purpose the Council has undertaken to draw up a common list of non-military security and police equipment, the export of which should be monitored in accordance with the second criterion of the Code respect for Human Rights in the country of final destination. Among the items included in this list are portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administration of an electric shock, including electric-shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns and component therefor specially designed or modified for such purpose.

This list will be forwarded to the Commission which is responsible for taking the initiative of proposing a draft Community mechanism for controlling exports of non-military equipment which may be used for internal repression.

The Council has taken note of the Commission's intention of submitting as soon as possible a proposal based on the list, which should include the afore-mentioned items, enabling Community control arrangements to be set up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/01

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: A thermal power plant to be built in Tordesillas, Spain

The American multinational ENRON wants to build an 800 megawatt natural gas and diesel oil power plant on the outskirts of Tordesillas which, according to data supplied by the company, will release 2 540 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the main cause of climate change), 2 100 tonnes of nitrogen oxides, 191 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 545 tonnes of carbon monoxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere every year.

This project is being planned in an Autonomous Region which produces three times more electricity than it consumes. It is therefore obviously already producing a surplus.

The plant would be located only 2 kilometres from Tordesillas, a town with 8 000 inhabitants, and 5 km from the only protected natural area in the province of Valladolid - the Riberas de Castronuno nature reserve - and only a few kilometres from the vineyards producing wine under the registered designation of origin Rueda.

According to the proposal presented by the company, the volume of water from the river Duero needed to cool the power plant, 0,42 m3/s, will seriously upset the river's ecosystem, since some years the volume during the low-water period is only 3 m3/s and barely covers its ecological flow. This will inevitably cause serious damage to the wetlands of Riberas de Castronuño,

which is classified as a nature reserve. In view of its environmental importance, particularly for birds, part of this area has been declared a special bird protection zone, which it is proposed to include in the Natura 2000 network.

Can the Commission ensure that there is a specific environmental impact study taking account of protection and measures to be adopted to safeguard and prevent damage to an ecosystem which is being incorporated in the Natura 2000 network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However, it has verified that the area in question is SPA ES4180017 - Riberas de Castronuño, which is classified as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1) (the Birds Directive). It is also a site of Community importance (SCI ES4180017 - Riberas de Castronuño) in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/CEE of 22 May 1992(2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

It should be mentioned that the Province of Valladolid (Castile-Leon) contains 3 SCIs to be added to the Natura 2000 network in that Province.

The Commission will be contacting the Spanish authorities to ask them to send it the environmental impact statement adopted before the final go-ahead was given for the project.

When the Commission receives a reply, it will be in a position to say whether Community legislation has been complied with in this particular case.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0157/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject: European social statute for housewives

In reply to Written Question E-2175/00(1) the Commission drew attention to the fact that back in 1987 it submitted a proposal for a directive under which the gender equality principle would apply to statutory and occupational social security schemes.

The directive in question made provision for the individualisation of social security rights, which would extend to housewives, as an alternative to derived rights. Unfortunately the directive was not approved by the Council, despite the favourable opinions thereon of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

Given that it has been some time since the Council rejected the aforementioned proposal, and that a changed climate now surrounds the new strategy to modernise and improve social protection in Europe, does the Council believe that it ought to rethink its previous stance and accommodate the legitimate aspiration of housewives to enjoy equal status with the remainder of the population in general social protection schemes?

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 184.

Reply

(30 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member rightly says, the Commission back in 1987 presented a proposal for a Council Directive completing the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes. The Council suspended its work on the matter in 1989.

The fact is that the proposal was based in part on Article 235 of the Treaty (new Article 308), so unanimity was required for its adoption. Several delegations had maintained reservations of principle on the proposal particularly in view of its financial implications.

On a general point, the Honourable Member is informed that while the coordination of social security schemes to safeguard the rights of migrant workers is indeed a matter for the Community, the structure and organisation of such schemes are a matter solely of individual Member State responsibility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1164/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Compensation for the transfer of football players

The recently negotiated football transfer fee system states that the calculation of compensation for the transfer of a player will depend not on the training costs of an individual player but on the league and the type of club.

What precautions has the Commission taken to ensure that this will not financially disadvantage lower division clubs, for example in the Vauxhall Conference in the UK, who are much more dependent on income from transfer fees than top level clubs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2001)

According to the general principles of the undertaking submitted by International Federation for Football Associations (FIFA) on 5 March 2001, it is FIFA's responsibility to implement inter alia a system of training compensation for players aged under 23.

The system will be based on a categorisation of clubs in accordance with their training costs to be established by FIFA under objective criteria.

The Commission made clear that the aim of the new system should be the encouragement and rewarding of the training efforts of clubs, in particular, those of small and amateur clubs without limiting freedom of movement of players in a disproportionate way.

The attention of the Honourable Member is also drawn to the joint reply made by the Commission to Questions E-1052/01, E-1053/01 and E-1054/01 by Mr Ford(1).

(1) See page 157.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1796/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Licensing of radio stations and measures to guarantee pluralism regarding the mass media

The Greek Government has adopted legislation regarding the licensing of radio stations on the basis of questionable studies, with the result that, on grounds of public policy, licences have been issued for only 28 wavebands and withheld from radio stations enjoying high ratings. This has resulted in a stalemate and has proved particularly harmful to a large number of radio stations, to say nothing of infringing the principle of free and pluralist mass media and Article 6 of the TEU.

According to the findings of a specialist working party which were submitted to the Greek parliament, it is possible for 39 wavebands to operate in Attiki. Accordingly the Greek Government was acting illegally by failing to respect the democratic and social rights of the Greek public.

In view of this selective licensing of radio stations and the flagrant violation of fundamental rights which has occurred:

1. Are not the Member States expressly required to ensure respect for, and protection of the above principles, in particular that of media plurality? To what extent is this really being achieved in the light of developments such as the above?

2. Have steps been taken to ensure that Greek framework legislation regarding broadcasting is in line with Community legislation and the provisions of the Treaties?

3. What action will the Commission take to bring to an end the illegal tactics being followed by the national broadcasting authority in revoking licences and undermining media plurality?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Commission recently received a complaint regarding the system of licensing of radio stations in the Attica basin. The Commission is in the course of examining this complaint and has asked the Greek authorities to provide them with additional information. Since the case presents a rather complex situation, it is too early to say yet whether the actions taken by the Greek government are consistent or not with European law. The Commission attaches great importance to the creation of a single broadcasting market within the Community and will pay due attention to this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0395/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Quality control of honey

A spot check was carried out at the Weidahaus border post in Bavaria on a consignment of honey from Rumania, which was imported on behalf of a German company registered in Hamburg.

Laboratory tests showed that the product concerned contained the substance Streptomycin in the amount of 66,6 ug/kg of honey. On 22 February 2000, the German company was informed of the result of the tests; the company, however, then stated that the consignment of honey was bound for Greece and not Hamburg.

The use of antibiotics in bee-keeping is in fact totally banned. However, as the General Consumers Federation of Greece claims, no tests for antibiotics which are prohibited are carried out at all in Greece. Moreover, according to the Federation, random checks on quality and the labelling of honey containers have revealed that a large proportion of the containers either does not meet the required specifications or is misleading for consumers in that the honey they contain is different from that described on the label.

Given that Greece is a country with a high level of annual honey consumption, can the Commission say whether Greece does not in fact carry out the necessary checks even spot checks on honey to determine whether banned antibiotics have been used in consignments of honey which have been marketed and which, allegedly, do not meet the required specifications or where there is a discrepancy between label and content?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2001)

The use of antibiotics to treat bees is not permitted in the Community. However, third countries that export honey to the Community sometimes use antibiotics to treat their bees, in accordance with their own legislation.

In this case, products imported into the Community must still meet European standards, in particular with regard to residues of veterinary medical products. In addition to the routine checks at the Community's border inspection posts, Member States must, every year, implement a monitoring plan for residues in animal products in application of Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC(1). This plan includes the monitoring of honey for antibiotics. Greece has submitted the results of its 1999 monitoring plan for residues in honey, which means it is performing the required checks.

Council Directive 74/409/EEC of 22 July 1974 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to honey(2) lays down the main Community standards for the intrinsic characteristics and composition of the product. It is therefore up to each Member State to provide itself with the necessary resources to monitor the implementation of these texts and the Community's food product labelling rules applicable to honey.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Plight of the Turkish Kurds

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure respect for the human rights of the Turkish Kurds, with particular regard to Turkey's wish to accede to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Accession Partnership (AP) with Turkey adopted on 8 March 2001(1) sets out the priorities for Turkey in her efforts to make progress towards meeting all of the Copenhagen political criteria. The AP indicates that Turkey should, in the short term, strengthen legal and constitutional guarantees for the right to freedom of expression in line with article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and, in the medium term, should guarantee full enjoyment by all individuals without any discrimination and irrespective of their language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief or religion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Commission welcomes the adoption, on 19 March 2001, of the National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) by the Turkish Government. The Commission considers this document as an important step and the first stage in a far-reaching programme of political reform in Turkey. With regard to the political criteria for Union membership further efforts should be undertaken in areas such as ensuring cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001.