ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3175/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1998)

Subject: Directive on zoonoses

By 1 September 1997 the Member States were supposed to have adopted the necessary laws and administrative provisions to comply with the directive on zoonoses. Which Member States met this requirement or have in the meantime done so?

What action has the Commission taken to discharge its duty to ensure implementation of EU rules in those Member States that have not satisfied this requirement?

By 1 November 1997 the Commission was supposed to have submitted to the Council a report accompanied by appropriate proposals for combating zoonoses. Why has it not complied with this provision?

When does it intend to submit the report and proposals?

By 1 January 1998 the Member States were supposed to have implemented the minimum measures laid down in the directive on zoonoses. Which Member States met this requirement or have in the meantime done so? What action has the Commission taken to discharge its duty to ensure implementation of EU rules in those Member States that have not satisfied this requirement?

By 1 March 1998 the Member States were supposed to have submitted to the Commission a plan setting out the national measures which they have implemented or intend to implement in order to achieve the objectives laid down in the directive on zoonoses. Which Member States met this requirement or have in the meantime done so? What action has the Commission taken to discharge its duty to ensure implementation of EU rules in those Member States that have not satisfied this requirement?

By 31 December 1998 at the latest, the Commission should have taken a decision on third countries' plans indicating the guarantees provided by those countries with regard to monitoring of zoonoses; if no decision is taken concerning a third country, that country is suspended from the Community list of countries allowed to export to the EU. With what third countries has a decision been taken? Does the Commission intend to respect the deadline for all third countries?

Zoonoses are one of the gravest threats to public health in the EU: how many people have fallen ill in the individual Member States from zoonoses and from which ones, and how many people have died from zoonoses and from which ones?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2538/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Pensions and politicisation of the European civil service

The independence of the European civil service is a sign of transparency and democracy. The basic provisions governing that civil service are the Staff Regulations of Officials and Other Servants, which are applied by the Council by means of legislative acts. As a result, any decision taken by any institutional authority without the Council's agreement has no legal force, no legal basis and is, above all, against the spirit of those regulations.

Can the Council therefore:

1. provide genuine career planning for officials based on the criteria of transparency and democracy?

2. immediately make appointments to the vacant posts in high grades in the EP's establishment plan and comply with the principle that priority should be given to staff in the institution in which the appointment is being made, putting an end to inter-institutional transfers for which there is at present no justification?

3. arrange for all the expenditure necessary for the proposed purchase of the buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg and undertake as a priority to ensure sufficient funding for the budget items relating to staff?

4. shelve the proposal to create a fund to finance future pensions, given that sizeable payments have already been made by all officials to fund their own pensions (8,25 % of their monthly salary) and that the supplementary payments made by the Member States would be sufficient to guarantee the pension scheme, without threatening to reduce the budget items relating to pensions?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, pursuant to Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities are laid down by the Council, acting by a qualified majority and after consulting the other institutions concerned.

To date the Commission has not placed any proposal before the Council on either the creation of a fund to finance pensions or amendments to the provisions relating to the career of officials.

The Council points out that, pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, the implementation of procedures for filling vacant posts in an institution is a matter for that institution's appointing authority.

The expenditure referred to in point 3 of the Honourable Member's Question concerns Section I of the European Communities' General Budget and is the subject of budgetary decisions taken by the European Parliament as part of its administrative autonomy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs

When they met within the Council in March 1998, the Ministers responsible for justice and home affairs issued a statement on openness and transparency. The object was to make details of measures more readily and rapidly accessible, provide regular exhaustive information to the Press, and organise open Council debates. In addition, the national parliaments were to be briefed at an earlier stage.

1. To what extent and in what way is the Commission involved in implementing the above statement? How far has the work progressed?

2. How will information (for the public and Press) be made more easily accessible?

3. What will be done to involve the national parliaments earlier in the day?

4. According to reports, the British Presidency, in collaboration with the Commission, drew up an exact list of legislation constituting the third pillar acquis, which is now to be used as a basis for the accession negotiations. Would it not be conducive to transparency to publish the list? If so, when can the list be supplied?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The statement to which the Honourable Member refers binds only the Council. However the Commission is also naturally committed to the principles of openness and transparency.

1. As early as 1994, the Commission adopted Decision 94/90/ECSC,EC,Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents(1) to grant wide access to internal Commission documents. This act applies to all areas of Commission action, including justice and home affairs (JHA). The press and individual citizens make regular use of this provision to obtain documents on JHA matters. There is a period of one month within which the Commission must process any such requests and there are very limited reasons for which access cannot be granted, such as the protection of public interest, or individual privacy.

2. The Commission is currently preparing a website to further enhance access by the public to work in this field and allow for regular updates on new initiatives. The website will be accessible through the Europa-server.

3. The Commission is committed to close co-operation with the Parliament on the basis of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union which is also considered the appropriate way of ensuring transparency toward national parliaments. Any action proposals established by the Commission in the JHA field are routinely addressed to the Parliament, and as a matter of routine the Commission suggests to each Presidency that the Parliament be informed of any further legislative development.

4. The Honourable Member is reminded that the report containing the third pillar acquis is a Council document and a request to allow for its publication would have to be addressed to that institution.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2129/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Taxation of electronic commerce

Has the Commission decided to act to ensure that no new tax not affecting other forms of trade is imposed on electronic commerce once it has become subject to indirect taxation, by seeking to take the necessary steps to establish absolute tax neutrality?

What strategy will it pursue to that end?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission has been working with Member States for over a year to establish principles for applying the Community common value added tax (VAT) system to electronic commerce. This work progressed on the common understanding between the Commission and Member States that VAT is the best and most appropriate way to apply indirect taxation to electronic commerce. The Commission is continuing to work in consultation with Member States tax authorities and the business world, to ensure that the Community VAT system is adapted as necessary to meet developments in this new environment.

It is not sufficient, however, to work only at the European level. Electronic commerce represents a global market and co-ordination is needed to find an internationally acceptable tax framework for such transactions. To this end the Commission has forwarded a communication to the Council(1) proposing guidelines for the taxation of electronic commerce stressing, amongst other things, the need for neutrality. The Council has taken note of the Commission's work in this field and confirmed that VAT, rather than other forms of taxation, should apply to transactions in this field. The Commission is to contribute to the debate in the appropriate fora to seek agreement to an international tax framework based on the indirect tax principles approved by the Council.

(1) COM(98) 374 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1823/98

by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Council

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Nuclear safety

Given that the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield had its reprocessing operations shut down by the nuclear safety authorities towards the end of May following the discovery of radioactive waste from its discharge pipes, will the Presidency now initiate negotiations between Member States such as Ireland and Sweden which have expressed ongoing concern over the safety at Sellafield, in advance of the OSPAR Convention meeting in July, to assess the ways in which Sellafield can convert its operations from reprocessing to safe waste management.

Reply

(19 October 1998)

The Council welcomes the outcome of the ministerial conference of the OSPAR Convention held in July 1998, at which the Parties agreed to take steps for discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances to be reduced by 2020 to levels such that, by comparison with historic levels, additional concentrations in the marine environment resulting from such discharges, emissions and losses are close to zero.

The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the Community's basic standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation, as laid down in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom(1), apply.

The Council would draw attention to the fact that the Member State in which nuclear installations are situated is responsible for the safety of the design, construction and operation of those installations. The choice of fuel cycle is also a matter for each Member State.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/98

by Renate Heinisch (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Information on the level of EU aid paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1997

For what measures was Community funding paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1997, and how high were the grants from

1. the Fourth Framework Programme for activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration,

2. the Community programmes in the areas of energy and the environment,

3. Community initiatives, particularly the Interreg programme,

4. the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth for Europe programmes,

5. other Community programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Council

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Action against capital punishment

In Luxembourg the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers took a decision to step up their international campaign against capital punishment, which is a fundamental violation of human rights. The Union has consequently proposed to work for the universal abolition of the death penalty and has called for the use thereof to be progressively restricted.

In view of the fact that such a call is to be issued to countries which still practise capital punishment, can the Council say whether, pursuant to the above decision, it will also be issued to the USA?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

The European Council has decided, as an integral part of its human rights policy, to strengthen its international activities in opposition to the death penalty. The EU will work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty as a strongly held policy agreed by all EU Member States.

On 29 June 1998, it agreed internal guidelines for demarches and representations it will make on capital punishment towards third parties as well as in multilateral fora. In the process of attaining the primary objective of abolition, the EU will call, in cases where the death penalty still exists, for its use to be progressively restricted, and insist that it be carried out according to minimum standards. It will also press, where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced.

The EU set out its policy regarding capital punishment in the memorandum it submitted to the 53rd UN General Assembly; it has intervened in individual cases and also made representations along these lines to the United States authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Diabetic drivers

Would the President-in-Office agree that the United Kingdom's ban on newly-registered insulin-dependent diabetic drivers is discriminatory, given that insulin-dependent diabetic drivers from other EU countries can drive as visitors in Britain?

What action does the Council propose to take to eliminate this discrimination?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

On 29 July 1991 the Council adopted Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, which entered into force on 1 July 1996(1).

The Directive lays down harmonised conditions for the issue and renewal of licences, including "Minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving a power-driven vehicle" (Annex III). The Council would point out that, for the issue or renewal of driving licences to diabetic drivers in groups 1 and 2, the minimum Community standards applicable are set out in points 10 and 17.2 of Annex III.

Furthermore, point 5 of Annex III stipulates that the standards set by Member States for the issue or any subsequent renewal of driving licences may be stricter than those set out in that Annex.

Under point 10 of Annex III, licences may be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers suffering from group 1 diabetes, subject to authorised medical opinion and regular medical check-ups appropriate to each case.

Under point 10.1 of Annex III, it is for each Member State to decide on the scope of the very exceptional cases, duly justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups, in which driving licences may be issued to, or renewed for, drivers in group 2. It is therefore for the relevant medical authority to deliver its opinion case by case on the basis of the provisions laid down by national legislation.

A Member State may thus lay down, following the guidelines set by the Community Directive, stricter provisions for the issue or renewal of driving licences for diabetic drivers than those laid down by another Member State.

The Council would point out that the above Community provisions can be harmonised at a later date only on the basis of a Commission proposal.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1, as last amended by Directive 97/26/EC (OJ L 150, 7.6.1997, p. 41).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2386/98

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Subject: Production aid for sugar-free peaches and Williams and Rocha pears

In Regulation (EC) 504/97(1) of 19 March 1997 the Commission redefined the implementing provisions for the system of production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables. For the 1997/98 marketing year provision was made for aid to be granted for peaches and Williams and Rocha pears (in syrup and/or natural fruit juice) in the amount of ECU 8 128/100 kg net and ECU 15 532/100 kg net respectively, provided that a given minimum price set by the Commission was paid at the time the raw material was purchased in the EU. This system is primarily intended to ensure that products processed from Community primary products are marketed at competitive prices.

Since Austria's accession to the EU attempts have been made to extend this system to include sugar-free products (stewed peaches and Williams and Rocha pears) so that the cost advantage due to the aid may also be passed on to consumers of sugar-free and low-sugar products. Such products might thus enjoy the same advantages as fruit in sugar syrup and/or natural fruit juice.

When will the Commission include sugar-free products of Williams and Rocha pears and of peaches in the product aid system and so create the conditions for account to be taken of future nutritional awareness of sugar-free and low-sugar products through competitive prices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

In view of the particular importance of these products for certain regions of the Community, the Council included provision for aid for the production of Williams and Rocha pears and peaches (in syrup and/or natural fruit juice) in its Regulation (EC) 2201/96 on the common organisation of the markets in the processed fruit and vegetable products(2).

In its implementing regulation(3), the Commission defined "fruit juice" so that the natural sugar content of the fruit was maintained, in line with the products covered by the Council Regulation.

The aid scheme does not cover therefore all processed products containing peaches and pears and, in particular, it does not apply to sugar-free or low-sugar products. It rather aims to support producers of peaches and pears in the Community who thus benefit from prices higher than those paid in non-member countries for competing products.

Moreover, the Council laid down guarantee thresholds for this aid scheme in order to avoid increased production in view of the large availability of raw materials and the elasticity of processing capacity.

It appears therefore that the extension of Community support to new products would run counter to the aims of the Council in instituting this aid scheme and the Commission does not intend to submit such a proposal.

(1) OJ L 78, 20.3.1997, p. 14.

(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(3) Regulation (EC) 504/97 of 19 March 1997 (OJ L 78, 20.3.1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2493/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of projects in developing countries

1. What provisions exist to assess the environment impact of infrastructure projects in developing countries to which EU funding is contributed?

2. Is the Commission aware of allegations that have been made to the effect that the Stabex Road Rehabilitation Programme in Cameroon has caused great distress in local communities and has led to an alarming degree of damage to virgin forests in the area?

3. Does the Commission have any comment to make on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Since the introduction of the Environment Manual in 1993 each project proposal is subject to an environmental screening. Through the screening process it will be identified whether negative environmental impacts can be expected due to the implementation of the project. If this is the case, the project proposal has to undergo a preliminary environmental impact study or, if a serious negative impact is likely, a full environmental impact study has to be conducted. Such an independent study will either conclude that the impacts are so serious that the project should not be funded or it will identify specific measures in order to mitigate the expected negative environmental impacts.

A copy of the Environment Manual is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat. The Commission is aware of criticism concerning a "Community funded road" in Cameroon. This criticism has been brought up by the Rainforest Foundation through a film shown on a British television channel. The film suggests the existence of a causal link between the construction of a ECU 14 million Community funded road through primary rainforest and negative effects such as the destruction of this forest through logging and the extermination of endangered species through intensive poaching, thus depriving the local pygmies of their livelihood.

The facts are that the Community funded maintenance works on an existing road for ECU 0.6 million. This road is the only access for the remote Lomié district and its farming population. It is of vital importance for this population.

The Rainforest Foundation never checked with the Commission the information provided by their own sources. If they had done so, they would have learned about various projects for the conservation of the local fauna and, more generally, sustainable development of forestry resources, financed by the Community in the Cameroonian rainforest area.