ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/98

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Directive 96/23/EC

Has Directive 96/23/EC(1) now been fully implemented by all Member States? Are the Member States fully complying with the requirements concerning the collection of data? What are the results of the tests for illegal growth hormones?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

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, has been implemented by 11 Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom). France has partially implemented the Directive while Ireland, Italy and Portugal have not yet done so. The Commission has started infringement proceedings against those Member States that have not yet implemented this Directive.

In 1998 all Member States submitted a national plan for residues and the Commission has adopted the appropriate decisions following a favourable opinion of the standing veterinary committee.

The Commission is sending the test results for 1996 direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. The Commission has no data available yet concerning the results of tests for illegal growth hormones carried out in 1997. It is making every effort to collect this data. For 1998, the Directive obliges Member States to report the results to the Commission by 31 March 1999 at the latest.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3052/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: ECHO

The members of the Committee on Budgetary Control sharply criticised the Commission in their hearing of Commissioners Bonino, Liikanen and Gradin on the ECHO fraud cases.

Can the Commission say when the internal assessment of all potential future cases of this nature, mentioned by Commissioner Liikanen in the committee meeting, will be available?

Once the assessment is completed, will the Commissioner be able to guarantee that such occurrences will no longer be possible in future?

Can the Commission explain convincingly, and in a form comprehensible to EU citizens, why the UCLAF report was not handed over to Parliament in its entirety?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

The Commission has carried out a detailed inquiry into the use of external technical and administrative support. A first overview of the results was presented to Parliament's Committee on Budgets on 5 November 1998. The budgetary authority will be provided with more detailed information in time for the second reading of the 1999 budget.

The Commission is doing all in its power to ensure that the evaluation referred to by the Honourable Member will be available shortly, bearing in mind the time needed to collect and analyse the results of the current inquiry.

The Commission will ensure that measures are taken to remedy identified irregularities on a permanent basis.

As stated by Mr Santer at the first part-session in October 1998, the Commission, together with Parliament, is looking into ways of providing Parliament with more information on inquiries conducted by the Task Force for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention while observing the need to avoid prejudicing people's rights and breaching the confidentiality of the inquiries and the secrecy of formal investigations.

Here, the President has already taken the initiative of transmitting the report by the Task Force for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention direct to Parliament's President.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/98

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Termination of service of officials

In three judgments of 30 September 1998 (Cases T-154/96, T-164/96 and T-13/96), the EC Court of First Instance allowed the complaints of 20 Court of Justice and Court of Auditors officials who had expressed a wish to terminate their service.

The Court thus upheld the argument that Council Regulation (EC/Euratom/ECSC) 2688/95(1), introducing special measures to terminate the service of officials of the European Communities as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, contained irregularities.

In its judgments the Court found that the Council had made substantial modifications to the text of the original Commission proposal, on which the European Parliament had issued its opinion on 12 October 1995(2), without consulting Parliament again. The European Parliament had specifically called on the Council to consult it again "should the Council intend to make substantial amendments to the Commission proposal".

What action does the Commission propose to take as a result of these judgments, and in particular when does it propose to submit a new proposal for a regulation to the Council with a view to eliminating the shortcomings criticised by the Court?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1998)

Since the Commission proposal for a Regulation providing for the adoption of special measures for the termination of service of Community officials in the institutions is still before the Council, the Commission does not plan to adopt any other measures regarding this matter.

In addition, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Council is appealing to the Court of Justice against the judgments given by the Court of First Instance on 30 September 1998 in Cases T-154/96 and T-13/97.

(1) OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 287, 30.10.1995, p. 186.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Results of the ban on exports of bulls to be used in bullfights

With reference to the temporary ban imposed by the Commission, could the latter say what effect the ban will have on the export, from Portugal to Spain, of bulls to be used in bullfights? Does the ban apply to them as well? If so, why? Such bulls are not, after all, primarily intended for human consumption.

What view does the Commission take regarding incidents of which it must surely be aware and which indicate that the Spanish authorities, yielding to pressure from the country's producers, have been restricting Community freedoms as regards the export of bulls from Portugal to Spain?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Commission Decision 98/653/EC(1) of 18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal includes a prohibition on the dispatch of bovine animals from the territory of Portugal, excluding the territory of the autonomous region of the Azores. This provision will be reconsidered within 18 months in the light of the evolution of the disease, the effective enforcement of the relevant measures and any new scientific information.

The prohibition on the dispatch of live bovine animals results from the risk of dispatching animals which are incubating the disease but do not yet show symptoms. When slaughtered these animals could enter the food and feed chains in the receiving Member States. Fighting bulls are not exempt from this prohibition because, until now, when killed, they are either processed together with other dead animals, or consumed by people. Hence, despite their principal purpose as fighting bulls, they will either enter the animal feed chain, or the human food chain.

There has been no request from the Portuguese authorities, nor from the Spanish or French authorities, to exempt fighting bulls from the provisions. This question needs careful examination in the light of the inherent risks to human and animal health, the safeguards provided and the feasibility of the indicated controls. However, any changes in Commission Decision 98/653/EC would need a qualified majority in the standing veterinary committee. In the case that no such majority can be obtained, the proposal has to be sent to the Council for further examination.

(1) OJ L 311, 20.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/98

by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Code of Conduct for European companies operating in third countries

In paragraph 20 of its resolution (A4-400/96)(1) of 12 December 1996 on human rights throughout the world in 1995-1996 and the Union's human rights policy, Parliament "calls on the Commission and the Council rapidly to submit a proposal on a Code of Conduct for European companies operating in third countries which obliges them to respect human rights in all their forms (civil, social, economical, environmental), including mechanisms of control and sanction on the grounds of the existing OECD proposal".

What steps has the Commission taken in this respect and when will it submit a proposal for such a Code of Conduct for European companies operating in third countries?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

The Commission gave its views on the Code of Conduct for European companies operating in non-Community countries when the report on human rights throughout the world in 1995-96 referred to by the Honourable Member was adopted on 12 December 1996.

The Commission takes a constructive approach on human rights by helping raise public awareness, supporting private initiatives and closely following initiatives by individual companies or sectoral groups to introduce voluntary codes. Having carried out an exploratory study to see how it can promote codes of conduct for Community companies operating in developing countries, particularly in the social sector, it is now analysing the terms of codes already in existence to see how they are being applied and to establish their scope and impact.

The Commission is working with social partners under the European social dialogue to promote discussion and dialogue on initiatives which include codes of conduct and social labelling. It plans to launch a debate within civil society, i.e. social partners and NGOs, to find common ground in the initiatives which have already been taken and will undoubtedly increase in Europe.

(1) OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Aid to the Sniace company (Spain)

Can the Commission confirm that it has received a complaint from the Austrian undertaking, Lenzing, alleging that the Sniace company of Cantabria, Spain, has been the beneficiary of central and regional government aid?

Has it received the statements from the central and regional governments in Spain, denying that any aid which might lead to unfair competition has been granted?

Is it aware that some of the products manufactured by Lenzing and Sniace compete for the same market?

Is it aware of the potential damage that this complaint may cause to Sniace's financial and social standing?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Following a complaint made by Austrian firm Lenzing A.G. about various forms of illegal state aid received over a period of several years by Sniace S.A., a competitor of Lenzing in the area of viscose fibres, and taking into account the comments made by the Spanish authorities and a number of third parties, including other competitors of Lenzing, during a formal investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission adopted a final partially negative decision on 28 October 1998.

According to the Decision, two of the measures under investigation did constitute aid, namely agreements to defer social security contributions at non-market interest rates and a repayment agreement with the wage guarantee fund, Fogasa, also at non-market interest rates. In line with its practice in previous cases, the Commission rejected the Spanish government's assertion that the measures in question fell outside the scope of the state aid rules on the grounds that they were generally applicable under Spanish law. The Commission held that it was evident that the public authorities were able to exercise discretionary treatment towards the firm in question. Since the aid was not based on any approved scheme and Spain had not attempted to justify the aid on the basis of a valid restructuring plan, the Commission decided that the aid was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery. The decision did not quantify the amount of aid but stated that it was at least equivalent to the difference between the interest rates granted in the agreements with the social security treasury and Fogasa and the market rates.

The Commission was unable to establish the existence of aid in any of the other measures under examination, but reserved its position on the question of whether the firm's failure to pay statutory environmental levies might constitute aid.

The Commission is mindful of the potential consequences of its decisions on aid beneficiaries and competitors and therefore endeavours to apply the state aid rules in an objective and impartial manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4052/98

by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Community measures for short-haul sea transport

Since there are approximately 35,000 kilometres of coastline and more than 600 ports situated near industrial centres, short-haul sea transport could be a solution to the problem of road congestion in Europe and offers advantages in terms of energy consumption, the environment and economic and social cohesion in the outlying regions of the Union.

Can the Commission say:

1. what follow-up has been given to its Communication of 5 July 1995 (COM(95) 317) on the development of this mode of transport;

2. what practical measures it envisages to develop and encourage short-haul coastal shipping?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

1. Following the Commission's 1995 Communication on Short Sea Shipping, a first progress report was produced in 1997(1) and a further report will be published in April 1999 in response to the Council's invitation to produce such reports at two-yearly intervals. It is intended that this new Communication will examine the potential of Short Sea Shipping in the framework of sustainable and safe mobility, the "image" of this mode of transport, its integration in European logistic transport chains, the progress achieved in promoting Short Sea Shipping during the last few years, and the barriers remaining to the further development of such transport. The new Communication will include recommendations for further action.

2. One of the conclusions of the 1995 Communication was that the main impetus for making Short Sea Shipping a more commercially attractive and viable alternative to transport users has to come from the maritime industries themselves. However, there are certain actions that could be taken at other levels.

The Commission has consequently supported several projects relating to Short Sea Shipping and ports under the Fourth framework programme for research and development. These include a project aiming to co-ordinate all the development work and to make the results of individual projects available to all interested parties.

Short Sea Shipping projects have also been supported under the Community Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (PACT), and port-related projects have been carried out with trans-European network (TEN-T) financing. In addition, the Commission has financed a study on documentary requirements in Short Sea Shipping. In the Mediterranean region, a package of regional maritime projects has qualified for financing under MEDA.

These projects and studies will be examined in the above-mentioned new Communication.

The Commission supports the efforts of the shipping industries, in particular within the structure of the Short Sea Shipping panel of the Maritime Industries Forum (MIF) to develop Short Sea Shipping roundtables as a forum in which practical solutions can be found for problems affecting shipping and port operations. The Commission also supports regional co-operation on matters relating to Short Sea Shipping in Europe, including certain third countries.

(1) SEC(97) 877.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/98

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

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug

It has been established that the "millennium bug", a problem also known as the "year 2000 effect", may affect all types of programmable electronic systems (PESs), ranging from mainframe computers to microchips.

These systems are employed for all nature of industrial purposes at the various stages of the production process, in the transport sector, in the public services and so forth. Furthermore, the said systems are date-dependent and their reaction on the first day of the new millennium will be critical. For those reasons, it would advisable to pinpoint the risks involved.

What plans has the Commission devised with regard to the course and timetable of action to be followed in order to ensure that the EU administration is primed to deal with the problem, if and when it arises?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

The Commission adopted a communication on the year 2000 computer problem(1) on 25 February 1998, and a communication on the state of preparations within the Union on 2 December 1998(2). Chapter 6 of this document describes the progress made at Community level and with internal projects in adapting computer systems to the changeover to the new millennium.

Within the Commission itself, the impact on its internal systems is being handled by the Informatics Directorate as regards the central aspects of the problem, and by the different Directorates-General when it comes to the information systems under their control. The Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration has set up a Year 2000 Monitoring Group. The main thrust of the actions undertaken by such groups lies in their efforts to raise awareness of the problem amongst decision-makers, draw up a detailed inventory, monitor the implementation of the adaptation work required, inform the Directorate-General of the progress made and, where necessary, recommend appropriate measures to ensure that the administrative departments continue to run smoothly. The monitoring groups are working in tandem with the Informatics Directorate on preparations for a general test which is due to be carried out at Easter 1999.

(1) COM(98) 102.

(2) SEC(98) 2100 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3994/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Reduction in the value of export refunds for pigmeat

The Commission has decided to reduce by 50 % the value of export refunds for pigmeat bound for certain central and eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Slovenia), even though the prices of pigmeat products have increased by a much lower percentage. Pigmeat production in the EU still generates huge surpluses, whilst Russia is only just beginning to resume imports of pigmeat products.

On the basis of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Why did the Commission decide to reduce the value of export refunds by 50 %, even though the prices of pigmeat products are known to have increased at a much lower rate?

2. Why did the Commission take such a decision when it knew that EU pigmeat production still generates huge surpluses which are unlikely to be absorbed by the incipient resumption of Russian imports?

3. Does the Commission not think that the reduction (even though it only affects exports to the above-mentioned countries) could lead to lower export levels and, consequently, to an even greater increase in surpluses?

4. Could the Commission confirm that the decision to reduce the value of refunds applies only to exports to the above-mentioned countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

The refunds in force prior to the reduction mentioned by the Honourable Member were primarily meant to promote exports to Russia, where meat demand is high but ability to buy was impaired by the economic crisis. However, Community exports increased also to Eastern European countries disturbing pig meat markets in these countries, which are in a process of preparing for Community membership. The poor market situation in these countries was already leading to significantly increased import duties or the possibility of stopping pig meat imports from the Community. In these circumstances the Commission considered that the most expeditious way to respond to this situation was to reduce refunds for pig carcasses and certain cuts for Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as from 9 December 1998 back to the level where they had been before 3 August 1998.

The production of pig meat in Europe has increased substantially in 1998 and is estimated to remain very high in 1999. Therefore, the Community will do its best to continue its active export policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3847/98

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Inclusion of Zaragoza airport in the Madrid-Zaragoza high-speed rail link

The 14 priority trans-European transport network projects adopted at the Essen European Council include the construction of the southern European high-speed rail link between Madrid, Zaragoza, Barcelona, Perpignan and Montpellier.

The construction of this link will reduce the journey time between Zaragoza and both Madrid and Barcelona from the current three and a half hours to a little over one hour and fifteen minutes, which will have the effect of bringing those cities considerably closer together.

The possibility is currently being discussed of routeing the new rail link via Zaragoza airport, which would strengthen the intermodal aspect of the project. At the same time, more business would be attracted to an under-used airport and some of the pressure on the airspace around Madrid and Barcelona would be relieved.

Does the Commission consider this kind of synergy between a European rail transport network and an airport to be in line with the proposals for strengthening intermodal transport networks which have been advocated by the EU Institutions?

Does it regard the proposal as an interesting one? If so, how could it help to make it a reality? Are there similar projects within the European Union which could serve as a model for the one in Aragon?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 1999)

The Commission gives a high policy priority to furthering transport intermodality. In the context of the availability of financial assistance from the trans-European transport network budget line therefore the connection of airports to the rail network is seen as a desirable objective. However, it is normally felt to be most appropriate as a means of offering passenger choice and alleviating congestion at relatively large airports. Certainly the endorsement of the authorities in the Member State for any such project is legally essential for the Commission to consider an application for support.

That does not mean that the encouragement of such developments at regional and accessibility points such as Zaragoza is ruled out, if they offer an economically and environmentally attractive potential. The Commission has recently commissioned a study of the contribution which regional airports may be able to make to releving congestion at major hubs.