ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2519/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Four-year framework programme 1999-2003

The Commission's fourth four-year framework programme for funding for scientific and technological research expires in 1998. The funds concerned have formed the main source of financing for fundamental research activities; given the chronic shortfall in public research funding (accounting for only 3 % of GDP in the EU), it may reasonably be affirmed that the Commission has, through this programme, achieved a fair balance between pure and applied research.

The guidelines for the new framework programme for 1999-2003 are now under discussion.

Can the Commission state whether it intends to operate a policy shift giving applied research priority over basic research (this would be to the detriment of research in the EU, and would lead to even more of the Union's researchers emigrating, as well as entailing the risk, should the new framework programme cut off funding for pure research, of reducing the scope of EU research to the field of applied science and technology alone, thus severely penalising the innovation that results from the creativity of fundamental research in the Union)?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson On behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission's proposals for the 5th Framework Programme for research(1) aim to respond to Europe's current economic and social challenges, such as employment, the quality of life and the strengthening of the competitiveness of businesses.

The Parliament and the Council have both supported this approach. In the common position it adopted, however, the Council decided on a budget allocation of ECU 14 000 million, which constitutes a drop in the outlay on research and technological development (RTD) compared with the present level, while the Commission and the Parliament are still arguing for an allocation of ECU 16 300 million.

The key activities which constitute the backbone of the new Framework Programme have socio-economic objectives which are clearly identified in relation to these challenges. In order to attain such objectives, preference must be given to an integrated, multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach and a good balance maintained between basic research, applied research and demonstration activities.

In following this approach, basic research will not be penalised but, on the contrary, its results ought to be better exploited to attain the objectives of the 5th Framework Programme. Scientific and technological excellence, on which the Community's research policy is based, will naturally continue to be one of the fundamental principles of the future Framework programme and will continue to apply to all its actions.

(1) COM(97) 142 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Anti-dumping tariffs for steel producers

I am very grateful for the answer of 11 June 1998 (P-1606/98)(1). Since the answer relates to measures already taken for stainless steel screws, I am obliged to repeat my question to the Commission and point out that it concerns steel screws in general.

1. Is the Commission planning to take such measures?

2. If so, how high will these tariffs be per tonne?

3. When is an anti-dumping tariff on the products referred to above likely to be introduced?

4. Does the measure only concern steel screws, or will other steel products also be affected?

5. Will all steel producers in the Far East be affected by the tariff policy?

6. If not, to which producers is this anti-dumping arrangement to apply?

7. If the Commission sets different tariff rates, how will it calculate them?

8. How long is the Commission planning to maintain such an arrangement?

9. Through what channel and when at the earliest can the enterprises affected by the measure obtain information on the Commission's thoughts in this matter?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

1. The Commission generally does not open anti-dumping proceedings on its own initiative, but analyses a complaint lodged by Community producers injured by dumped imports.

2. No statement about the potential amount and type of duties can be made before the end of an investigation.

3. Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 of 22 December 1995(2)) provisional duties are imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of proceedings, but no later than nine months from the initiation of proceedings if the preconditions for measures are met.

4. The definition of the product concerned in proceedings depends on the complaint. The Community industry may lodge a complaint with regard to other products.

5. and 6. The definition of the countries and the exporting producers against which proceedings are initiated depends on the complaint and can be changed by the Commission on its own initiative.

7. The duties imposed on the co-operating producers depend on the calculation of their individual dumping and injury margins.

8. Definitive duties generally remain in force for five years, unless a review shows that the expiry of measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

9. Under Article 5(5) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, the Commission cannot provide any information concerning complaints unless a decision has been made to open an investigation.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care

With regard to the serious problems caused in Italy by the distinction between the register of dentists and the register of surgeons, in which doctors specialised in dentistry and in odontostomatology are registered, can the Commission say:

1. whether in any Member States other than Italy, doctors practising dentistry belong to the same professional body;

2. whether in France and Luxembourg there are regulations governing "activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ..." carried out by dentists who are not doctors or by doctors (whether or not specialising in stomatology) practising either in the public sector or privately, and also whether exceeding any such restrictions on the right to practise constitutes a criminal offence or merely an aggravating factor in cases of malpractice?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Data searches of Austrian banks

The Commission, in its capacity as the authority with responsibility for competition, is currently going through data removed during searches of Austrian banks. Cartel cases are known to take a very long time.

Can the Commission nevertheless give an approximate future time frame for these proceedings?

If so, what is the timetable? When can concrete results be expected?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will appreciate that, as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position to comment on pending proceedings. This equally applies to questions regarding expected developments in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2828/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Deposits of caesium-137 exceeding 40 Kbq/m2 in areas of Greece following the Chernobyl disaster

According to the map showing caesium deposits in Europe in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster published by the Commission in cooperation with scientific institutes and bodies in Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine and certain Member States, an increased accumulation of caesium-137 (exceeding 40 Kbq/m2) can be observed in a number of European countries (apart from countries in the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl), including Greece, Austria, Italy and Germany. In Greece, deposits of this radioactive substance can be observed in certain areas in particular.

In view of the fact that the half-life of caesium-137, as opposed to other radioactive substances, is 30 years, can the Commission say whether data bases have been set up and and statistics compiled concerning the possible impact on the health of local residents? In what way is Greece participating?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The atlas of the deposition, over the whole territory of Europe, of radioactive caesium released during the Chernobyl accident results from a collaborative research programme of the Commission with Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. It provides much needed perspective for judging the current radiological significance of the deposition across Europe.

While in a few regions in Greece levels exceed 40 kilobecquerelle per square meter (kBq/m2), as in many other regions of Member States, there is no reason to expect that any observable health effects would occur in the affected population.

The Commission receives on a regular basis, under the terms of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, information from Member States on current levels of radioactivity in the environment. This data is stored in the radioactivity environmental monitoring (REM) database of the Joint research centre in Ispra and is taken up in a series of reports published by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/98

by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Ecological energy tax

On 5 June 1998 the Swiss Parliament adopted an energy tax featuring a system for utilization of the proceeds to promote renewable energies.

What scope does the Commission see for such an energy tax in the current debate on a future adaptation and ecological overhaul of the taxation system of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the proposal it made in 1997 for a Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products(1). This proposal would extend the current harmonised system of excise duty to cover all fuels, whilst allowing Member States to exempt renewable sources of energy from taxation.

There is no legal basis in the Treaty for requiring the Member States to use the resulting revenues for any particular purpose, although the Commission is encouraging Member States to use the revenues to reduce the statutory charges on labour, thereby assisting employment.

The Council and the Parliament are examining the Commission's proposal.

(1) OJ C 139, 6.4.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2892/98

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 1998)

Subject: Treatment of British passport holders by French border police

At 18.30 on Tuesday 14 July 1998 a British woman, her husband and her four small children, all British passport holders en route to a holiday destination in France, disembarked at Calais and presented their passports to the French authorities.

As a Muslim, the woman in accordance with her faith wears a full veil and cannot show her face to men other than blood relatives. In order to identify the woman the official on duty, a male police officer, requested her to raise her veil. The woman politely declined and whilst trying to explain why (she does not speak French) asked to see a female officer to whom she could show her face.

After repeated requests the French authorities refused to provide a female police officer, declined to communicate in English, did not provide any documentation in English and for 30 minutes did not provide interpretation. Eventually the woman was refused entry into France and returned to the UK by the French authorities. On return her identity was confirmed by a British female customs official.

This unacceptable incident caused the family great distress and, as Union citizens, denied their right to free movement. Unfortunately similar incidents are regularly experienced by EU citizens from ethnic minorities when they travel.

Does the Commission agree that the way in which the woman and her family were treated is unacceptable and an abuse of women's fundamental human rights? What measures is the Commission taking to prevent such incidents and in the future how will it use the new Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty in this vein?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Community legislation on the free movement of EU citizens lays down that Member States must admit citizens of the Union to their territory merely on production of a valid identity card or passport(1).

As Community law stands at present, therefore, Member States are entitled to check the validity of an identity card or passport when a border is crossed. This involves checking that the person to whom the identity card or passport was issued, and whose identity it evidences, is actually the person producing the document at the border.

The Commission considers that, when the direct link between the document and its holder is checked, care must be taken to ensure full respect for fundamental rights and human dignity.

It would also point out that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is amply guaranteed in the Member States, both internally by domestic remedies and externally by the machinery established by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) See in particular Article3 of Council Directive68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, and Article 3 of Council Directive73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973, OJ L 172, 28.6.1973.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/98

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Duration of the ECVAM director's contract

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods established by the EU plays an important role in carrying out long-term validation studies.

It would appear that the most recent contract for the post of director is not for the standard period of five years but is for two years only.

Clearly, if managerial staff are replaced too frequently the continuity of work and the Centre's scientific credibility are likely to be undermined.

Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the above, it would be advisable to confirm the appointment of the Centre's director for a period of 5 years?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2489/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

As long ago as November 1996, in the study "Nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety in the East" (PE 166.083/fin.), the European Parliament's STOA unit documented serious shortcomings in the administration of EU financial aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in connection with the PHARE and TACIS programmes. At around the same time the Commission commissioned a similar study, the purpose of which was to evaluate the safety improvements which had actually been achieved in the nuclear sector in the recipient countries. However, the European Parliament has not been given access to date either to that study or to its results. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest that little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes previously identified in the STOA study.

1. Does the Commission consider that the procedural rules governing the aid programmes make it possible to react quickly enough to sudden problems, or are there possibilities for improvement in this respect and, if so, what are they?

2. Is it correct that the Commission is having serious problems in coordinating aid to the Central and Eastern European nuclear sector, as intended by the G24 States, partly because of a lack of adequate communication not only between its own departments but also with other organisations involved, and does it consider the staff available to it in this area to be adequate in terms of numbers and qualifications?

3. What is the Commission's view of the effects of the problem of liability on improvements in nuclear security in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what effect are liability issues having on the success of the EU funds deployed to this end?

4. How successful does the Commission consider the use of supply agencies, as the interface between donor and recipient countries, to have been, particularly in the area of on-site assistance and taking cost aspects and implementation times into account, and should the Commission not retain more decisions as a matter for itself?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/98

by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Applications for asylum

Will the Commission state what common regulations each Member State has for the purpose of dealing with applications for asylum and what directives are current and common with the EU to regulate the flow of illegal immigrants into the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

Asylum and immigration matters are at present dealt with under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, and form part of the third pillar. Article K.1 of the Treaty on European Union provides that asylum policy and immigration policy, including combating unauthorised immigration, residence and work by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States, are matters of common interest. The legal instruments available under Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union for addressing these issues include joint positions, joint actions and conventions, but not conventional Community instruments such as directives and regulations.

The position will change following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which transfers asylum and immigration matters into Community competence under new Title IV of the EC Treaty. New Article 63 of that Treaty will require the Council to adopt a range of measures in the field of asylum, and measures relating to illegal immigration and illegal residence, within five years of the entry into force of the EC Treaty of Amsterdam.

In the field of asylum, the only legally binding instrument which has been adopted at European level is the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States(1), commonly known as the Dublin Convention. This Convention was signed in 1990, but it did not enter into force until 1 September 1997. Various implementing measures have also been adopted by the committee established under Article 18 of the Dublin Convention and published in the Official journal.

A number of non-binding instruments relating to asylum or to combating illegal immigration have been adopted by Ministers responsible for immigration or, since the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, by the Council. The instruments adopted by the Council have also been published in the Official journal.

(1) OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba

1. Is the Council aware that work has been resumed on the construction of a nuclear power plant in Juragua, Cuba, which was begun in 1981 and stopped in 1992, although the building was described as ramshackle in a recent report in "The Independent"?

2. Is the Council prepared to seek information as to the safety of both the building and the reactors which, it is claimed, will be ready to go on stream within four years?

3. What prospects does Cuba's observer status under the Convention of Lomé offer for the finding of a solution to this issue which will be satisfactory and safe for Cuba in particular and for the region and the world in general, and is the Council prepared to make use of this new political relationship between the EU and Cuba?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

1. The question raised by the Honourable Member has not been discussed by the Council.

2. In any case, such a question could be discussed in the framework not of Euratom but of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, to which Cuba (having signed the Convention on 20 September 1994) and the Member States of the EU are party.

The objectives of that Convention are:

"i) to achieve and maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide through national measures and international cooperation;

ii) to establish and maintain effective defences in nuclear installations against potential radiological hasards in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation from such installations;

iii) to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences should they occur."

Article 5 states that "each Contracting Party shall submit for review, prior to each meeting referred to in Article 20, a report on the measures it has taken to implement each of the obligations of this Convention".

3. Neither the existing Lomé Convention nor the negotiating proposal for a future Lomé Convention contain provisions on this matter.

It is also pointed out to the Honourable Member that Cuba's observer status at the forthcoming negotiations is without prejudice to any future decision on its accession to the Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/98

by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Subsidized agricultural exports in the framework of the WTO Agreements

In the light of the WTO Agreements, can the Commission state:

1. to what extent the EU, in the various product areas, has used the permitted volume of aid for the promotion of agricultural exports and what was the non-take-up rate in the last three years?

2. whether direct or indirect subsidies exist in the United States for maize gluten feed exported to Europe and if so, what are they?

3. whether there are subsidies in the United States for oilseed producers and, if so, whether they are in compliance with WTO provisions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

1. Only data on export subsidies covering the first year (1995/1996) and the second year (1996/1997) of implementation of the World trade organisation (WTO) commitments are available. A comparative table including information on used and unused export subsidies for both marketing years 1995/1996 and 1996/1997 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliaments' Secretariat. Data on Community notifications to WTO are also available on Internet: www.wto.org.

2. and 3. According to commitments it has undertaken, the United States is not granting any export subsidy for corn gluten feed. Domestic support to agricultural products may be granted up to an amount of US$ 23 100 million in 1995. This amount shall be reduced to US$ 19 100 million in the year 2000. There are no ceiling commitments for individual products. The ceiling for domestic support was established on the basis of the average annual support level in the United States in the period 1986 to 1988. During this period support granted to maize was US$ 7 800 million and support for oilseeds was US$ 248 million (de minimis, i.e. less than 5 % of production value). The United States have notified to the WTO that the specific support for 1995 for maize and oilseeds was respectively US$ 3 000 million and US$ 16,5 million (de minimis). The notified support for 1996 was de minimis for both maize and oilseeds (respectively US$ 28 and US$ 14 million). The change in support level for maize is explained by the fact that the United States have replaced former deficiency payments programmes by hectare payments. The amount notified in 1996 for the latter type of support was US$ 5 200 million. The United States notification for 1996 is under discussion within the relevant committee of WTO.

In addition to the information provided above, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the United States are applying a system (which is extended to the year 2007) whereby a tax rebate is granted to blenders for adding ethanol which is obtained from maize, to fuel. Corn gluten feed is a by-product from the production of ethanol from maize.