ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1705/98

by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Power of joint-trade organizations restricting competition

In France, joint-trade organizations exist to deal with agricultural products covered by a common market organization (COM). They operate:

- either under laws and decrees dating back to 1942 and 1943, which give such joint-trade organizations powers as regards Market Management And Price Fixing, which are in breach of Union rules. Accordingly, their decisions have been repeatedly struck down by the European Court of Justice (in particular in Cases 123/83, 136/86 and C-249/91),

- or under the amended Law No 75600 of 10 July 1975 which limits their remit to the advertising and promotion and the statistical monitoring of the product, in accordance with Union rules.

The French Government is preparing to submit to the French National Assembly an agricultural guidelines bill (PLOA) which would extend the powers of the agricultural joint-trade organizations deriving from the 1975 law and approximate them to those provided for in the 1942 and 1943 laws. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 87 of the PLOA, the joint-trade organizations would be able to:

1. intervene in market management to ensure that product quantities were more in line with market requirements, etc.,

2. intervene in order to improve food safety, in particular by the identification of products ...

This involves areas, currently within the Exclusive remit of Union and/or national authorities, in respect of which each regional joint-trade organization may well promulgate its own rules, varying from one region to another, a process which will culminate in damage to the internal market. Similarly, the notion of improving the identification of products is the major pretext put forward in an attempt to justify any moves to impose an obligation for wines to be bottled in the region of production.

Does the Commission feel that intervention by joint-trade agricultural organizations, in the form of the promulgation of binding rules in these two areas, complies with Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, despite the case-law of the Court of Justice referred to above?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

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

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

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997(1), Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies(2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure2. The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Ireland had a general government deficit of 2.5 % of gross domestic product (GDP). The deficit was 2.7 % of GDP in 1993. Ireland was never considered by the Council as having had an excessive deficit.

(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997.

(2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

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

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

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997(1) and by Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies(2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure2. The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, France had a general government deficit equal to 3.9 % of gross domestic product (GDP). This situation led to a Council decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in France (Article 104c (6) of the EC Treaty). In the period covered by the Honourable Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, France budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.

(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997.

(2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1892/98

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(9 June 1998)

Subject: System for the award of licences under the new COM in bananas

In the context of its amendment of the Common Organization of the Market in bananas (Regulation (EEC) 404/93(1)), can the Commission specify the technical arrangements for award of licences which it intends to introduce in its implementing regulation, particularly with a view to guaranteeing the existing quantities for non-traditional ACP countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

As part of the procedure for the adoption of the amendments to Council Regulation (EEC) 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, it was agreed, with regard to the arrangements for import licences, that the traders who would obtain the licences would be those who had actually been importing bananas over a recent reference period. The detailed rules will have to be adopted before the end of 1998.

The quantities of non-traditional bananas from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries which have been exported in the past will therefore confer entitlement also to import in the future, thereby enabling the traders in question to continue their imports.

(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1877/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Agri-environmental measures in Ireland

In view of the failure of the Irish Government to utilize all the payment appropriations allocated to it from the Regional Funds for transport projects, has the Commission considered the possibility of redistributing these payments to the Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme, a very successful scheme which had applications for amounts far in excess of the available funds!

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Responsibility for the reallocation of savings of funding under the Transport operational programme lies with the monitoring committee for the Community support framework. While the suggestion made by the Honourable Member has been considered, it was decided at the monitoring committee meeting of 26 June 1998 to re-allocate this funding for the most part in the same sector in order to take account of the needs for investment in transport in the Dublin region and for infrastructural deficits (road, rail) in Ireland as a whole.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Motor-vehicle number-plate requirement

From 1 June 1998 drivers whose vehicles carry the blue EU emblem on the number-plate, will no longer be required to display indications of nationality such as "D", "SF", etc., when travelling within the Union.

On what legal basis was this negotiated?

To what extent did the Commission link Switzerland into the negotiating process?

Was Switzerland actually involved in any way in the above negotiations, or was it merely consulted or notified before or during the negotiating process?

Did the Commission ever intend to involve Switzerland in this outcome?

What were the reasons for not involving Switzerland?

Does the Commission have any plans to involve Switzerland in future?

If not, why not?

If so, when does it expect this to take place?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

The Commission's proposal for a Council regulation on the recognition in intra Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered(1) is based on Article 75(1)(d) of the EC Treaty. The proposal concerns intra-Community traffic only.

Following Parliament's first reading, the Commission has submitted a modified proposal(2) and the Council's common position can be expected in June 1998. The regulation is not expected to be adopted before autumn 1998.

It would therefore be premature to negotiate with third countries on the content of the forthcoming regulation. However, the Commission will take up the issue of recognition of the registration signs with the Swiss authorities at the earliest opportunity.

(1) OJ C 290, 24.9.1997.

(2) OJ C 159, 26.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales

The abolition of duty-free sales from 1 July 1999 will have short-term implications similar to those experienced when internal customs duties within the Community were eliminated. The response then was to introduce various programmes and measures to cushion the negative impact of the elimination of duties, particularly on the employment sphere.

Given that the 140 000 jobs generated by the duty-free sector in the Union will be lost with the impending abolition of duty-free sales, does the Commission intend to undertake similar action to minimize the adverse effects on the duty-free sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the implications of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales played a prominent part in the discussions on the completion of the internal market to which she refers. Recognising that there could be social repercussions if abolition was immediate, the Council granted the duty-free sector an extension of nearly eight years so that it could adapt and prepare for the situation after abolition. Compared to the programmes and measures adopted for other trade sectors, this was a very favourable outcome for the duty-free sector.

Nevertheless, the Commission is of course still concerned about the possible repercussions on jobs as a result of abolition. At the Ecofin Council on 19 May 1998, ministers acknowledged the Commission's position that if abolition should cause any specific, regional or transport-related problems, then existing Community provisions might well be available to alleviate those problems. To that end, ministers called on the Commission to prepare a working document, which would clarify the instruments available to Member States to address any undesirable consequences of abolition. Work has started on that document and it will be made available to the Ecofin Council in the near future. Parliament will of course be kept informed of progress on this issue.

Finally, the Commission does not accept the validity of the figure for job losses that the Honourable Member says will result from abolition. The figure comes from studies sponsored by the duty-free lobby, which are based on worst-case scenarios and which take no account of the possibility for duty-free operators to exploit alternative forms of retailing, or of existing sales being retained, albeit at reduced margins. They also take little or no account of the employment gains that will arise in domestic markets where replacement purchases will be made, or of the employment potential that the increased revenue from replacement sales will generate. Government-sponsored studies in Denmark, Ireland and Sweden have all shown that the figures used by this lobby are gross exaggerations of what may occur in reality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1725/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Marketing authorization for veterinary medicinal products used for horses

Under Council Directive 81/851/EEC(1), in order to obtain marketing authorization, veterinary medicinal products used for food-producing animals must be listed in Annexes I, II or III to Council Regulation 2377/90(2).

The British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) asserts that, because of the approaching expiry date for applications for the establishment of maximum residue limits (MRL), the welfare and health of horses and ponies is now under serious threat, since most drugs used for horses do not have an MRL and the cost of establishing one is, in many cases, prohibitively high.

BEVA further asserts that the application of this regulatory regime to veterinary medicinal products used for horses is inappropriate, since the vast majority of horses will never enter the human food chain.

What comments does the Commission have to make on this matter?

(1) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/98

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Equine medicines

The EU classification of horses as food producing animals is causing problems in the United Kingdom where there are a large number of recreational horses, and where many of the drugs used do not currently have the maximum residue levels necessary in the case of use for food producing animals. The costs of establishing an MRL is prohibitively high in such cases, given the relatively small turn-over of drugs for horses. Concern is being expressed at the effects of the withdrawal from sale of many drugs widely used for horses in Britain, as a consequence of EU legislation.

Can the Commission state whether it is prepared to introduce a derogation from Community legislation which would allow Member States to authorise the use of certain veterinary medical products for recreational horses, despite the absence of maximum residue levels for these?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Further information on the subway and high-speed tramway and application of Directive 85/337/EEC in Italy

With reference to my previous Written Questions: P-0141/97(1) on the construction of the Casaletto/ Largo Argentina high-speed tramway by Rome City Council, E-1273/97(2) seeking further information, E-1270/97(3) on Rome City Council's project to build a subway under the Castel Sant' Angelo and Directive 97/11/EC(4), E-2632/97(5), E-3001/97(6), P-3740/97(7) and E-3409/97(8) on the same subject, E-1971/97(9) and, in particular, E-3410/97(10) seeking clarification on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC(11) on the Environmental Impact Assessment of the works in question, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware that construction of the subway has been cancelled in favour of a different and far inferior scheme for an "underpass"?

2. Whether it intends to use the same EIB funding for this scheme which is different from the first one?

3. Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed for this project?

4. Whether the Lazio Region, identified in the reply to Written Question E-3410/97 as the competent authority under Directive 85/337/EEC, is still in breach of this Directive?

5. Whether the infringement proceedings announced in the reply are still applicable and what stage the investigations have reached?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

On the basis of information received from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Commission would point out that that the works being funded by the EIB under the Roma 2000 framework agreement do not include the building of a subway under the Castel Sant'Angelo, or the smaller scale project referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

In the framework of the internal distribution of the legislative power in Italy, regions are competent for adopting the transposing legislation for Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(12) in relation to works of regional relevance. Regione Lazio has not yet adopted the abovementioned legislation.

The infringement proceedings against Italy concerning the transposition of the above mentioned directive continue, and the Commission has delivered a reasoned opinion. As for the general content of the proceedings, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the response by the Commission to her written question E-3410/97(13).

(1) OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 234.

(2) OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 109.

(3) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 97.

(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(5) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 33.

(6) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 52.

(7) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 111.

(8) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 54.

(9) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 131.

(10) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 104.

(11) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(12) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(13) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Operation of European Studies Centres in Greece

Provision has been made under the National Programme for Foreign Language teaching, which is funded via subprogramme 1 "General and Technical Education" of the programme for "Education and Basic Vocational Training", in particular measure 1.1.c "Foreign Languages", for the establishment and operation in Greece of European Language Centres (ELC).

1. How many Centres are involved and what is the timetable for bringing them into operation?

2. Bearing in mind that private schools for teaching foreign languages - known as frontisteria - also operate in Greece, will their students be able to take part on an equal footing with the ELCs' students in the procedures for awarding language-proficiency certificates which the ELCs are to organize in accordance with the technical description of the measure?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States

This question concerns the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (COM(97) 252 final - 97/0155 COD)(1).

Although the Commission proposals are to be welcomed in that they put into practice the objectives, set out in the SLIM initiative, of producing simpler, more transparent and effective provisions and are in accordance with the recommendations of the Intrastat group which took part in the pilot project, could the Commission ensure that a standard form is adopted for the additional declaration throughout the Community, in order to help firms which have branches or associated companies in more than one Member State and to make the data collected more uniform?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

The Commission's proposal for simplifying the Intrastat system aims at reducing the number of data elements collected in order to reduce burdens on businesses. The proposal is part of a simplification package proposed by the Commission based on the recommendations of the Slim/Intrastat team.

In the proposal two types of data elements exist: mandatory and optional. These two types of data elements are also found in the present Intrastat system. The mandatory elements comprise a common set of information collected Community wide. The optional elements may be collected at national level, but are left to the discretion of the Member States. Accordingly, differences between Member States will still exist in respect of information requirements.

It should be emphasized that a single form was introduced in 1993 with the new Intrastat system comprising all mandatory and optional data elements (Commission Regulation (EEC) 3590/92 of 11 December 1992 concerning the statistical information media for statistics on trade between Member States(2)). The declarants may in principle use this form or the available national form.

An electronic form developed under the Edicom project is also available for the declarants in the IDEP/CN8 software package, which is now used in 12 Member States. A revised version of this programme is planned for 1999, which includes a multinational and multilanguage option in particular for enterprises operating in several Member States.

(1) OJ C 203, 3.7.1997, p.10.

(2) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1885/98

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

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Convergence report

The Commission's document COM(98) 1999 (report on progress towards convergence and recommendation with a view to the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union) states that on 23 October 1995 the Council adopted Regulation 2494/95(1) setting the legal base for the establishment of a harmonized methodology for compiling consumer price indices in the Member States.

This regulation proposed a two-stage harmonization:

1. the production of a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs), based on existing national CIPs, adjusted so as to make the coverage of goods and services as similar as possible;

2. the construction of harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs).

The same report states that the HICPs may be used for drawing up the following aggregate indices at European level: the European Index of Consumer Prices (EICP), the European Economic Area Index of Consumer Prices (EEAICP) and the future Monetary Union Index of Consumer Prices.

Can the Commission provide information on the EEAICP for 1997?

(1) OJ L 257, 27.10.1995, p. 1.