ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Traditional herbal medicines

Could the Commission please clarify why when drafting a definition of what is a traditional medicinal product it has under Article 16 (c) 1.c of the proposal for a directive, defined it as having amedicinal usein the Community throughout a period of at least thirty years preceding the date of application? This thirty year rule fails to accommodate many traditional medicinal products that cannot provide evidence of continuous use in Europe for thirty years.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission's proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council amending the Directive 2001/83/EC as regards traditional herbal medicinal products(1) provides for a simplified registration of certain herbal medicinal products.

The quality requirements for this category of medicinal products are the same as for all other medicinal products. The safety and the efficacy of the product, for which the applicant seeks registration, however, do not need to be proven by new tests and trials or by scientific literature. A simplified registration can be granted, if data showing the medicinal use of the medicinal product over at least 30 years is sufficient. This requires in particular that the product has been shown not to be harmful in the specified conditions of use and that the pharmacological effects or efficacy of the medicinal product are plausible on the basis of long-term use and experience.

Bearing in mind that the information on the product's traditional use constitutes the basis for assessing the product's safety and efficacy, it is of paramount importance to guarantee the validity of this information in a European context. The safety and the efficacy of a medicinal product can be influenced by regional factors including availability of other medicines and medical treatments, medical tradition and practice or physiological particularities. For these reasons it is essential to require that the information on the traditional use of the product to be registered in one of the Member States relates at least to a certain degree to its medicinal use in the Community.

At the same time, the Commission has tried to take into account medicinal use outside the Community as far as possible. Its proposal for a new Article 16c, paragraph 4, of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use(2) requires medicinal use within the Community of at least 15 years. To complete the period of 30 years however, the applicant is allowed to provide information on medicinal use outside the Community. This provision ensures the necessary validity of the information on traditional use as a basis for registration in a European context, while at the same time allowing the authorities to profit from information on non-European medicinal use.

(1) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.

(2) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: State of the Union address given by President Bush on 29 January 2002

What is the reaction of the Council to the State of the Union address which the President of the United States gave on 29 January 2002?

On what points does the Council share the opinion of the American President, on what issues does it disagree with Mr Bush, and why?

Does it share my concern that no reference at all was made to the European Union in the address? If so, what will it do to address this issue? If not, why not?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The EU's reaction after deplorable events of 11 September 2001 was swift and efficient, and highly appreciated by the United States. In trying to prevent a repetition of those despicable actions, the approach of the Union has been to try to ensure greater security for the well-being of all while respecting the fundamental freedoms which form the basis of our civilisation.

The Council did not take a position on President Bush's State of the Union address, which was primarily addressed to an American audience. The EU shares the US preoccupations on international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the potential spillover of regional conflicts. This does not mean that the Council always agrees with the United States on how to handle a particular situation. Where there is no agreement, the differences should be discussed calmly and rationally.

The Council has welcomed the recognition by President Bush in his speech of 11 March 2002 of the important contribution of many other countries, including those of the European Union, in the fight against terrorism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Irish broadleaf afforestation under CAP 2000-2006

The Agricultural Directorate of the European Commission has agreed to increased broadleaf targets with Ireland under the Common Agricultural Policy 2000-2006. The Commission was assured by Ireland that the current planting target of 20 % broadleaves would be increased to 30 % by 2006. This target is still below the European which reverses the predominance of conifers and favours the planting of broadleaves, which offer more value-added opportunities and community employment than a non-native conifer plantation and do not create the severe environmental problems related to conifers in terms of acidification.

Irish environmental groups predicted that the rebalancing of grants for CAP 2000-2006 was weighted in favour of conifers in spite of the Irish authorities' assurances to the contrary. In fact the broadleaf planting rate has fallen in Ireland in the last three years from 15,12 % in 1999 to 12,91 % in 2000 and, in figures released recently, the broadleaf planting rate for 2001 fell back to 12,43 %.

Would the Commission investigate this situation and determine why Ireland's agreement with the Commission's DG Agriculture is not being enforced?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

According to the information provided by the Forestry Service in Ireland upon request of the Commission, it should be noted that:

(a) the figures concerning broadleaf planting in recent years are as follows:

- 1999: 21,5 %;

- 2000: 20,0 %;

- 2001: 17,5 %.

These figures differ from figures mentioned by the Honourable Member. According to the Forestry Service this could be explained by the fact that figures mentioned by the Honourable Member (reported by the same Forestry service) show broadleaf planting only as areas, which are paid for as broadleaf. This broadleaf total does not include broadleaf planted under non-broadleaf grant categories such as 20 % diverse conifer category or for landscape/environmental reasons.

The outturn for 2001, which would have been expected to be comfortably over 20 %, did not reach this target. This was discussed at the second Monitoring Committee on the Common Agricultural Policy Rural Development Plan convened on 30 May 2002, Portlaoise.

The Forestry Service indicated that significant improvement in the year 2002 in the broadleaf plantation could be expected as witnessed by the delivery of broadleaf plants from the nurseries in the planting season just ended.

(b) The Forestry Service has established an in-house working group, which is examining the changes needed to meet the target of 30 % by the year 2006, agreed with the Commission. The Commission will continue to monitor in partnership with the Irish authorities progress towards realisation of this target.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0556/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Council

(4 March 2002)

Subject: Visas for non-Community citizens residing in Switzerland

Several hundred thousand immigrants, mainly from the Balkan States and Turkey, are living in Switzerland with valid long-term residence permits. Whenever they need to cross EU borders (Italy, Austria, Germany and, to a lesser extent, France) they have to apply for a visa. The FIM (Forum for the Integration of Migrants set up recently in Switzerland) suggests that instead of the visa requirement, they should have to present their passports and a valid residence permit.

Does the Council support this proposal? If so, what action will it take to put it into practice? If not, what alternatives does it suggest to avoid confusion in the consulates of the EU countries concerned?

Does the Council think that a solution to this serious problem might be found in the final decisions ratifying the agreement between the European Union and Switzerland?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The Council would point out that Regulation No 539/2001 lists the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States; the place of residence is not a criterion for deciding whether or not to issue a visa.

It is also noted that, although the procedure for issuing visas was harmonised within the Schengen framework (Common Consular Instructions), the Member States have sole responsibility for the issue of visas and decide on a case-by-case basis on requests for such documents.

In any case, the Council notes that the Commission has sole right of initiative in this area and that no initiative along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Members has been referred to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0688/02

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Foreign presence in Colombia

The candidate of the Colombian Liberal Party for the forthcoming presidential election has recently spoken against the participation of US military personnel in the offensive on San Vicente de Chucurri, the capital of Caguán province.

What action does the Council intend to take against the internationalisation of the armed conflict in Colombia and the military presence of third countries?

Reply

(22 July 2002)

1. The peace process in Colombia is currently going through a period of uncertainty. The President of Colombia felt obliged to put an end, on 20 February 2002, to the process, which began in 1998, of dialogue and negotiation for the conclusion of agreements with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia People's Army (FARC-EP) and to the Disengagement Zone. The Council has always supported President Andrés Pastrana and his efforts over the years to achieve peace in Colombia. Unfortunately, the FARC-EP have refused to come on board.

2. It is now for the Colombian authorities to define tangible means of enabling the Colombian Government to open up new channels for finding a solution to the conflict. Recommendations by regional organisations to which Colombia belongs and the experience of neighbouring countries undoubtedly have a contribution to make in the definition of those means.

3. The Council has expressed its solidarity with the Colombian people and with President Pastrana and his Government, as well as the hope that Colombian democracy, on the basis of full respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, can completely fulfil the aspirations for peace and prosperity of the Colombian people.

4. The Council has on several occasions expressed the view that there is no suitable alternative to a negotiated solution to the internal conflict and has reaffirmed its support for any initiative to establish a genuine dialogue with a view to ending the conflict which is tearing Colombia apart. The Council has also reiterated its willingness to support, together with the international community, any negotiation process which could lead to a peace based on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

5. The European Union will endeavour to fulfil the autonomous commitments entered into under the European programme of support for the Colombia peace process, insofar as security problems do not hamper it. The programme is aimed at promoting and ensuring respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and humanitarian law, improving the living conditions of local populations, encouraging the cultivation of alternative crops and the protection of biodiversity and supporting the introduction of reforms to the structures which fuel conflict.

6. Lastly, in its discussions with the Andean Community and the United States, the Council has on several occasions exchanged information on all aspects of the situation in Colombia and has outlined the European Union's position on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: The extent of the Commission ban on the importation of selected Chinese food products

The Commission recently banned a number of food imports from China, including fish, honey and poultry because of the lack of confidence in the validity of export certificates which are supposed to guarantee the safety of these products. Can the Commission indicate the particular areas of concern and whether progress has been made in ensuring that any future imports of these products will be properly checked by the Chinese authorities?

Could the Commission also confirm that the ban has been extended to catches of shrimp by Chinese vessels operating in International Waters and landed directly onto Community ports, and, if that is correct, to explain the justification for extending the ban in this way?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

On 30 January 2002, the Commission banned a series of products of animal origin from China intended for human consumption or for animal feed use.

This decision was taken following many findings of fishery products contaminated with prohibited drugs such as chloramphenicol and following an inspection mission of the Food and Veterinary Office in China from 8 to 22 November 2001. This inspection visit revealed a regrettable non-observance of the commitments and guarantees provided to the Commission as regards the control of residues and substances which present a risk to human and animal health.

This safeguard measure aimed at protecting public health is temporary and will be reviewed when the Chinese authorities provide guarantees that the products exported to the Community meet Community sanitary requirements. So far some progress has been made and Commission experts recently visited China to discuss and evaluate the new measures put in place by the Chinese authorities.

All crustaceans were first included in the ban due to a possible confusion between wild and aquaculture products, the latter being suspected of contamination. A first amendment to the Decision has already been adopted by the Commission on 10 June 2002(1) allowing the importation of low risk products such as shrimps caught by Chinese vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and landed direct in Community ports. A second amendment extending the list of fish species which may be imported has just been given a favourable opinion by the Standing Committee responsible in this area, and will be adopted by the Commission once the normal procedure has been completed.

(1) OJ L 151, 11.6.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/02

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Transposition into national law of Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees

As part of the transposition of Directive 1999/44/EC(1), the Act on the Reform of the Law of Obligations (Schuldrechtsreformgesetz) came into force in Germany on 1 January 2002. During the legislative procedure on the Act, the existing regulations on the sale of animals were deleted and not replaced. Together with the stricter enforcement of limitation periods and the rules on the burden of proof, which rests with businessmen, this has meant that animal vendors, particularly those classified as businessmen under § 14 of the German Civil Code, are faced with problems threatening their survival. It has been claimed that the production of evidence for the defence, in line with § 476 of the German Civil Code, is made particularly difficult if the fault arises as a result of incorrect treatment of or excessive demands on the animal. Nevertheless, the German legislation has provided for no special provisions concerning the sale of animals.

Which Member States, apart from Germany, have already transposed Directive 1999/44/EC?

With regard to the rules governing limitation periods and the burden of proof, have these Member States adopted special provisions concerning the sale of animals?

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Apart from Germany currently (6 June 2002) Denmark, Italy, Austria and Finland have transposed Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, in their national law and have communicated the wording of this transposing legislation to the Commission (Article 11 of the Directive).

In the relevant transposing provisions of the named Member States, no special clauses can be found that concern the sale of animals to consumers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Travellers

Will the Commission please state its opinion on the following propositions?

1. Since 1989, when the two resolutions on gypsy travellers' and occupational travellers' education(1) were passed, the Commission has earmarked funding through the Socrates programme to support collaborative, innovative, international projects to support the necessary step changes.

2. The recent changes in the review and evaluation process associated with new applications for funding has led to a serious drop in traveller-focused projects being successful at getting funding. As a result the situation is now critical, with both EFECOT and Interface facing the imminent prospect of closure. The loss of these two very effective networks cannot be calculated but there is no mistaking the consequences of a lack of a capable and informed information base. Traveller issues will once again be in the periphery with few opportunities for their voices to be heard, nor for concerted and coherent actions to be promoted.

(1) OJ C 153, 21.6.1989, p. 1 and 3.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Commission has a long record of interest in ensuring that support is given to initiatives aimed at improving the education and training of travellers.

Under the current phase of Socrates (2000-2006), this target group has been made one of the main priorities for support across all the programme's actions in every sector of education: school (and pre-school) education, higher education, adult education and other educational pathways.

As this target group is a priority within the Socrates Programme, funding has been allocated every year to projects promoting the education of gypsies and travellers, including during the 2000 and 2001 selection rounds. With a view to guaranteeing best use of public money and better quality of projects, Commission decisions to fund or reject project proposals are based on an independent, external evaluation carried out by experts in the field. Where new project proposals are not selected for funding, promoters receive a letter outlining the reasons underlying the decision and are encouraged to seek advice from the appropriate services of the Commission. The Commission believes that project quality is the only appropriate basis for project selection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: ERDF funding of rural cellular telephone access (TRAC) in Galicia

The Spanish Ministry of Government (Ministerio de la Presidencia) has issued a communication stating that Spain has taken steps to improve the appalling conditions suffered by rural cellular telephone access (TRAC) subscribers in Galicia, that the Commission had been made aware of the need to extend the concept of universal service, and that this new Directive has finally incorporated the Spanish proposals. The new European Parliament and Council Directive on universal service and users' rights in relation to electronic communications networks and services acknowledges that the replacement of TRAC facilities shall remain guaranteed within the framework of universal service, once the national laws transposing the Directive have come into force. Has the Spanish Government requested ERDF investment for replacing rural cellular telephone access (TRAC) facilities in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0855/02(1) on the request of the Spanish authorities for financial support for the project in question. The Directive on Universal Service(2) defines universal service as covering a range of specified services, including functional Internet access, provided to subscribers at affordable prices. The directive is technology neutral in the sense that it does not require the use of any given technology to provide these services.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 150.

(2) Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/02

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

(7 May 2002)

Subject: French farm fraud

Further to Commissioner Fischler's response to written question P-0440/02(1) by Neil Parish, will the Commission please confirm that it will inform the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control as soon as the Commission has read and examined the report in detail? Will the Commission forward its opinion as soon as possible? How does the Commission plan on recovering the missing funds?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission is in the process of examining the report of the French Court of Auditors in detail. It will inform the Parliament's Committee, on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) about its opinion on the report if invited to do so by the Committee. The results of the examination will be in principle available before the summer break.

If there is any evidence of administrative weaknesses leading to a risk to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) then this will be dealt with by proposing financial corrections through the clearance of accounts process. This is a well established process, set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(1), which leads to recoveries across the Union of 600-800 million per year. In the case of France these financial corrections have amounted to 457 million since 1994, or less that 1 % of the amount declared.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.