ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Possible health risks of flavour enhancers E621 and E632 (glutamate)

There are regular reports in the media on serious health complaints (headache, rashes, dizziness and insomnia) which may be connected with the consumption of food containing flavour enhancers. The reports refer to E621, E631 and E632 (monosodium glutamate or vetsin).

Is the Commission aware of these reports?

Have the side-effects of these substances, as mentioned above, been taken into account in any decisions concerning these substances? What were the conclusions concerning the side-effects?

Does the Commission intend to investigate the possible harmful effects of the substances in question or take any action? If so, when? If not, why not?

Anwer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Monosodium glutamate (E 621) is authorised according to the Community legislation for use in foodstuffs in general with a maximum level of 10 gram per kilogram (g/kg); disodium and dipotassium inosinate (E 631 and E 632) are authorised for use in seasonings and condiments according to good manufacturing practice. These substances have undergone, as with all food additives, a safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee on Food prior to their authorisation.

In particular, monosodium glutamate and the so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome were evaluated within the report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Food in 1995.

In this report, it is stated that tests on individuals who identify themselves as suffering from the syndrome have often failed to confirm the role of monosodium glutamate as the provocative agent. Moreover, these substances are widely distributed in all animal and plant tissues.

Therefore, the Commission sees no need to revise the legislation in force on glutamates and inosinates in the current situation, but will, as a matter of course, keep the situation under review in the light of scientific progress in this, as in any other area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0123/01

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(24 January 2001)

Subject: Independence of Austrian judges

Having regard to the critical conclusions of the report by the Three Wise Men on the independence of the Austrian judiciary, and having regard to the democratic criteria laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, what action will the European Union take following the open letter signed by more than two thirds of Austrian judges and prosecutors affirming that judicial independence and the separation of powers are threatened when blatant political pressure is applied to current investigations?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The letter signed by judges and prosecutors mentioned by the Honourable Member refers to an internal problem. The authors call on the Austrian authorities to take action as they are concerned about the opinions expressed by political leaders and the unacceptable consequences that implementation of these opinions could have for the administration of justice. Under these circumstances the Commission feels that the problem is an internal one which, given the content of the letter, does not call for action by the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0029/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Cancer prevention

In its programme of action against cancer the Commission provided for prevention measures, including measures to combat smoking, considered to be a cause of lung cancer. Anti-smoking campaigns have been conducted in all the Member States and, wherever the message is acted on by the general public, it results in a drop in the death rate. The harmful substances involved, commonly referred to as tar, result form tobacco combustion. Reducing and eliminating tar would reduce the risks and would thus be an effective form of prevention.

1. Is the Commission aware that bogart cigarette holders are available on the market, containing microfilters which can retain up to 80 % of the tar inhaled, depending on the type of cigarette.

2. Is it aware of any research conducted in this specific area to determine whether or not such microfilters can reduce tar levels?

3. If so, does it not consider that such filters could be included among the prevention measures to reduce tobacco consumption and, in effect, cancer?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

While the Commission is not aware of the products in question nor of the particular research on filters referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would, of course, be pleased to receive additional information about those products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0158/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: Delay in the provision of ERDF funds to Malaga University

Some of the projects planned for the near future by the current governing body of Malaga University in Spain have been on hold since last spring, as they await the resources they need from ERDF funds.

This is the situation as set out to Malaga University's teaching staff by its vice-chancellor. The university has requested ESP 2 billion from ERDF funds over the next two years, which would be spent on its medical research centre, its skills centre at the Andalusia Technology Park, communications networks and the purchase of equipment for its research departments.

Will the Commission give the reason for the delay in the provision of ERDF funds to Malaga University cited by its vice-chancellor, and say how the difficulties preventing those funds from being used for the aforementioned purposes could be overcome?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

Part-financing from the Structural Funds for projects located in Andalusia is dependent on approval by the Commission first of the Community support framework (CSF) for the Spanish Objective 1 regions and then of the integrated operational programme (OP) for Andalusia and of the other multiregional programmes likely to provide assistance in this region, in particular that devoted to research, development and innovation. The national authorities have then to draw up the programme complement for approval by the Monitoring Committee for the various items of assistance.

The CSF was approved by the Commission on 19 October 2000 and the Andalusia OP on 29 December 2000. The other programmes will probably be approved during the first quarter of 2001. The Spanish authorities will have then three months to send the programme complement to the Commission.

After all these documents have been adopted, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1), the choice of the projects to be part-financed will be the responsibility of the Spanish authorities, subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the documents approved.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/01

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

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Reproductive health definition

According to the World Health Organisation, the term reproductive health includes the term fertility regulation which includes interrupting unwanted pregnancies.

With respect to the reference to reproductive health in various budget lines of the Budget 2001, does the Commission include abortion in its definition of this term?

(World Health Organisation, Definition and Indicators in Family Planning Maternal and Child Health and Reproductive Health used in the WHO regional office for Europe, revised March 1999).

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0208/01 by Mr Blokland during question time of March I 2001 at Parliament's part-session(1).

(1) Written answer of 13.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/01

by Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Effects of the Gulf war

Nine years after the end of the Gulf war, a situation exists where:

- more than one million people (mostly children) are suffering the effects of air raids and sanctions affecting foods and medicines;

- more than 300 tonnes of depleted uranium are causing leukaemias and deformities in children;

- air raids by American and British forces are continuing in a climate of total indifference, the most recent having taken place on 10 February.

Given that senior United Nations officials have described the sanctions as an inhuman tragedy which must be ended, how long must the civilian population, who are completely innocent, continue to be punished for acts they did not commit?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the serious humanitarian conditions in Iraq. An improvement of this situation will require a change/suspension of the economic sanction regime as set out in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1284. By continuing to refuse to comply with this resolution, the Iraqi government carries full responsibility for delaying the lifting of the economic sanctions and prolonging the hardship of its own people.

Nonetheless, the Commission is doing everything possible within its mandate and with the resources available to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people through our assistance provided by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). Since the Gulf War in 1991, the Community has been the major donor of humanitarian aid to Iraq, contributing over 250 million. An amount of 12 million is envisaged from the 2001 ECHO budget.

The Commission will continue its assistance as long as there is a need for it in Iraq. The need will remain as long as the sanctions are in place. The issue of sanctions against Iraq is not primarily a matter of responsibility for the Commission, but rather of the Council. Ultimately, it is the United Nations Security Council, which has the responsibility for implementing and/or changing the sanction regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 February 2001)

Subject: Gender equality staff

What is (a) the gender balance, (b) the budget, (c) the role of the Women's Information Service in the Information Directorate-General?

What projects are these civil servants currently undertaking?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Women's Information Sector no longer exists following the restructuring of certain Commission services.

Nevertheless, as referred to in the Commission's Communication Towards a Community framework strategy on gender equality (2001-2005)(1), the Commission intends to ensure, where appropriate, that Commission departments take into account in their information policies specific women's needs and perspectives, in close co-operation with the Commission's Representations in the Member States.

(1) COM(2000) 335 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0028/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Frozen foods and competition

In Italy, certain companies which market frozen substances are required to pay substantial taxes known as industrial contributions to the canning industry testing centre, a technical and scientific agency of the National Institute for Tinned Foods (INCA). Without wishing to enter into the controversial question of whether frozen foods should be considered as belonging to the category of tinned products, I would point out that, in other European Union Member States, companies which market similar frozen products do not pay specific contributions, other than standard tax.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation? Can it confirm these tax disparities?

2. If so, does it not consider that the special tax imposed in Italy actually represents a distortion of competition in relation to similar companies in other parts of the Union?

3. What measures can it take to prevent the existence of such disparate situations in the single market, which penalise companies in one country and thereby improve the competitiveness of companies in other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

1. The Commission was not aware of this situation.

2. There are no Community provisions in the field of taxation, which prohibit the application of charges such as this industrial contribution as it has been described in the question. Article 90 (ex Article 95) of the EC Treaty concerns the prohibition to apply taxes discriminating against products from other Member States, which is not the case here. Furthermore, Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1) provides that Member States may introduce or maintain taxes on other products than those subject to harmonised excise duty (mineral oils, tobacco products and alcohol and alcoholic beverages), provided that those taxes do not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States. Finally, this contribution does seem to respect Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessement(2), which provides that Member States may maintain or introduce any taxes, duties or charges which cannot be characterised as turnover taxes. As to this last provision, reference should also be made to the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-318/96, which ruled that Article 33 of the Sixth VAT Directive does not preclude a levy such as the Austrian Kammerumlage, which is payable by members of chambers of commerce whose turnover exceeds a certain amount.

3. Consequently, possible distortions of competition to the disadvantage of Italian producers of frozen food can only be eliminated by the Italian authority or body imposing this industrial contribution.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Poultry imports to the EU

Can the Commission indicate the quantities of poultrymeat imported annually into the EU and the countries from which those imports come?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2001)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0671/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2001)

Subject: Fishing licence fees in international fisheries agreements concluded by the EU

1. Is the Commission aware of the contribution that Community shipowners make towards EU development cooperation policy through the payment of fishing licence fees under fisheries agreements between the EU and developing countries? Does it take this contribution into account in setting the amount to be paid by Community shipowners for licences in the agreements in which they participate?

2. Is it aware that the so-called northern agreements contribute little or nothing towards development cooperation and poverty alleviation, and that any licence fees included therein are lower in comparison with those in the southern agreements? What does the Commission make of this situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

1. The Commission is aware that, in addition to the financial compensation paid by the Community, fisheries agreements bring additional revenue from fees paid by shipowners to the coastal States concerned. The Commission accordingly bears both financial components in mind when negotiating the renewal of protocols on their expiry.

As to whether fees paid by shipowners contribute towards the development of developing coastal States, the Commission would point out that, by contrast with an increasingly large percentage of the compensation paid from the Community budget (targeted measures), the existing agreements make no provision for such revenue to be earmarked for measures specifically benefiting the fisheries sector of the partner country. This revenue does comply with Article 62(4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, under which coastal States can issue licences to fishermen or for ships and fishing gear, in particular against payment for rights or any other compensation which, in the case of developing coastal States, may consist in a contribution to the financing and technical resources of the fishing industry.

2. The Commission is also aware of the differences in treatment between agreements with northern countries and those with southern countries. There are, in its view, substantial differences between northern and southern partners in terms of both needs and development. It must accordingly adapt the instruments linking the Community and certain coastal States in bilateral or multilateral relations, paying due regard to the differences and the issues at stake. In so doing, the Community has never raised the need to contribute, through its fishing agreements, to the fight against poverty in some of its northern partners, but it strives to do so with some of its southern partners.

In its Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Commission recognised the dichotomy that the Honourable Member refers to and it proposed to adapt its external policy accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Irregularities in the placing of land registry studies in Greece

On 10 November 2000, I tabled Question E-3647/00(1) on irregularities in the placing of land registry studies in the Second Principal Programme for a land registry of Greece. In its reply the Commission, having confirmed that it had in fact received complaints, stated that it had received a reply from the Greek authorities to a letter which it had sent them and was examining it.

Will the Commission say whether it has completed its detailed evaluation of the Greek authorities' written reply? If so, is it in a position to give precise answers to my previous questions?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 198.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that it has now completed its evaluation of the Greek authorities' written reply regarding the allegations of irregularities during the tendering procedure for studies on a land registry for Greece. The Commission has sent a new letter to the Greek authorities on this matter in order to clarify certain aspects of the procedure which remain unclear.

The Commission is consequently obliged to wait for the response from the Greek authorities to this last letter before deciding what action to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Independence referendum in the Faeroe Islands

The Danish government is threatening to suspend its subsidy to the Faeroe Islands with immediate effect if the people of the Faeroes support their government's plan for independence. In doing so the Danish government is seeking to subvert the Faeroe government's initiative to set up an independent state in 2012.

On Saturday, 26 May the Kallsbergh government will be submitting its proposal to a referendum of the people. The proposal seeks a gradual transition to independence, coupled with a systematic reduction in the Danish subsidy. In 2012 a final decision would be taken on whether or not the Faeroe Islands should become independent after 600 years' Danish rule.

1. What is the Commission's view of the Danish government's threat to suspend its subsidy to the Faeroe Islands with immediate effect if the people of the Faeroes support their government's plan for independence?

2. Does the Commission think this threat is in accordance with the principles of good governance? If so, on what grounds?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the remit of the Union, as it comes under a field of competence that is exclusive to the Member State. Therefore, the Commission does not wish to make any comment on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the sale price net of tax, on which basis the right is to be claimed in accordance with the draft Directive, include capital gains tax or its equivalent, and how is this to be calculated in a resale involving several different national tax laws?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0256/01, E-0260/01, E-0262/01 and E-0264/01 given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2001)

On 13 December 2000, Parliament approved several amendments to the Council's common position of 19 June 2000 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art(1). Under Article 251(3) (formerly Article 189b(3)) of the EC Treaty, it is for the Council to decide on those amendments. The Commission will therefore take the common position as amended by Parliament as the basis for its answers to the Honourable Member's questions on certain specific provisions.

The Honourable Member is concerned about the obligations under which this Directive will place the persons mentioned in Article 9 who, under Article 1(4), will often be liable for the payment of the resale right if several persons think they are entitled to it, or if the resale right is not claimed.

The procedures for paying the resale right will depend on the way it is managed. According to the common position as amended, this question is a matter for the Member States, which may adopt specific solutions. For example, if a Member State opts for compulsory collective management of resale rights, it will be for the bodies responsible for collective management to deal with these questions.

In any event, the question of payment of a debt when the identity of the creditor is uncertain arises in many other areas apart from resale rights, and the Member States have well established rules. The persons referred to in Article 9 will therefore only have to follow the procedures prescribed in their national legislation.

Establishing a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and their heirs would therefore seem to be a pointless administrative formality, and the Commission has no such intention.

The Honourable Member also wonders about the scope of Article 5. The Commission confirms that the selling price taken as the basis for calculating the resale right must not include any of the taxes, such as VAT, normally added to the net price. This Directive is therefore without prejudice to the tax systems in force in the Member States.

(1) OJ C 300, 20.10.2000.