ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/03

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Toys in foodstuffs

In view of the fatal accidents in which children have died of asphyxia in the last few years, some of the more conscientious manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn potentially dangerous products from the market:

- Nestlé withdrew its Magic Ball (a chocolate-covered plastic ball containing a figurine of a Disney character) because toys inside food products are considered extremely dangerous;

- in Denmark and the United Kingdom a yoghurt containing a toy (Onken) was also voluntarily withdrawn from the market;

- in Finland a chocolate egg containing a novelty toy manufactured in Austria was withdrawn from the market.

Meanwhile, unscrupulous manufacturers continue to advertise and sell their food products under the pretext of offering a toy (which is of course just another marketing gimmick to promote the food product), which can cause fatal accidents and irreparable damage to the lives of families.

What specific action will the Commission take with a view to protecting European consumers?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1475/03, E-1505/03, E-1552/03 and E-1591/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission has answered several previous parliamentary questions on the matter raised by the Honourable Members, so it would ask them to refer in particular to the joint answers to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

With regard to the accidents mentioned in Written Question E-1505/03, the Commission has contacted the authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain details of these accidents and to assess them. In addition, the Commission will pay close attention to the results of the current investigation, coordinated by Parliament's STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) Unit, into the possible risk of combining food products with non-food products.

Any new factor arising from this information will be examined to determine whether initiatives should be taken at Community level.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0563/03

by Frédérique Ries (ELDR) to the Council

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation on paediatric medicines

In December 2000 the Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to propose regulatory measures to improve availability of paediatric treatment. The Council acknowledged that there was a genuine deficiency in this area of healthcare. The Commission undertook to respond to this call from the Council. Although the Commission several times confirmed this undertaking during the recent debates in Parliament on the occasion of the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, the obligation to submit the draft paediatric regulation to an economic impact assessment once again raises the fear that there will be further delays in the publication of the text. The imperative deadlines that the European institutions will have to meet in 2004 could well delay the completion of this project.

Could the Council of the European Union undertake to deal with this subject as a matter of priority as soon as the Commission has informed it of the regulatory proposals?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian recalls, the Council has shown its interest for this subject in the resolution of 14 December 2000 on paediatric medicinal products. In its resolution, the Council invited the Commission to make appropriate proposals as soon as possible in the form of incentives, regulatory measures or other supporting measures in respect of clinical research and development, taking account of the ethical aspects of clinical trials on children, to ensure that new medicinal products for children and medicinal products already on the market are fully adapted to the specific need of that population group, and taking into account also the internationally acknowledged standards for the protection of minors with regard to medical scientific research.

The Council awaits the Commission's proposals with interest and will, then, deal with this important dossier in a timely and effective manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/03

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Toys in foodstuffs

The most recent fatal accidents caused by toys (or parts thereof) in food products involved:

1. an eighteen-month-old child, the daughter of a surgeon, who died of asphyxia in Sweden in September 2002, according to a report published by the Swedish Consumer Institute;

2. a five-year-old girl, the daughter of a nurse, who died of asphyxia in Turkey in January 2003, according to a report published in the Turkish press and by the ANEC (European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation).

In view of all this, can the Commission explain why there is no specific legislation to protect European consumers?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1475/03, E-1505/03, E-1552/03 and E-1591/03given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission has answered several previous parliamentary questions on the matter raised by the Honourable Members, so it would ask them to refer in particular to the joint answers to Written Questions E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos(1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage(2).

With regard to the accidents mentioned in Written Question E-1505/03, the Commission has contacted the authorities of the countries concerned in order to obtain details of these accidents and to assess them. In addition, the Commission will pay close attention to the results of the current investigation, coordinated by Parliament's STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) Unit, into the possible risk of combining food products with non-food products.

Any new factor arising from this information will be examined to determine whether initiatives should be taken at Community level.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0455/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Food allergies and restaurant ingredients

With reference to my previous question E-2809/2(1) and the answer provided by Commissioner Byrne on 12 November 2002, I ask the Commission, who is the ultimate consumer of foodstuffs if it is not the restaurant's client, i.e. the person who eats the meal?

Could the Commission confirm the minimum size of print on food packaging with regard to ingredient labelling?

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 218.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Further to the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2809/02, the Commission would point out that Directive 2000/13/EC(1) lists the particulars which must be shown on the labelling of foodstuffs intended for supply to end users, restaurants, hospitals, canteens and other similar mass caterers.

The labelling obligations therefore apply to foodstuffs purchased by restaurants for the preparation of dishes, but not to the actual dishes served in these restaurants.

The Directive in question does not specify the minimum size of print to be used on food packaging with regard to ingredient labelling, but Article 13 states that the particulars on labels must be marked in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible.

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0255/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Lloyd's of London

In the Commission press release of 21 January 2003 outlining the Commission's continuation of infringement procedures concerning the regulation and supervision of Lloyd's of London, the Commission recognises the improvements achieved through the FSMA 2000 regime, but still has some remaining concerns over compliance with the Directive (73/239/EEC(1)).

Could the Commission detail how the new regime improves on the past regime?

Furthermore, the Commission's press release states that in the light of past failings, the Commission still has concerns about the current regulatory and supervisory framework.

Could the Commission specify what it considered these past failings to have been and elaborate which of them remain at present?

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission is very much aware of the interest of the Honourable Member, as well as that of many other parties, with regard to the Commission's investigations in this complex and sensitive file. For this reason the Commission decided to issue a press release on the despatch of both the first and the supplementary letters of formal notice, although this is not normal at this stage of the Commission's enquiries.

Further evidence of the Commission's goodwill and general wish for transparency is demonstrated by the three personal interventions of the Member of the Commission in charge of Internal Market to the Parliament and the other efforts undertaken by the Commission to keep the Members of the Petitions Committee regularly updated on the progress of this file.

However, the Honourable Member will understand that, in proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and in accordance with Article 10 of the same Treaty, the Commission must respect a climate of mutual confidence in conducting its investigations and in pursuing its dialogue with a Member State. The objective of such proceedings is to restore or to ensure compliance by a Member State with its Community obligations, not to establish past compatibility or incompatibility. This objective requires confidentiality in order not to prejudice the Commission in the fulfilment of one of its core tasks the control of the application of Community law.

For this reason, the Commission cannot expand further on the precise nature of the possible failings and allegations examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/03

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Reinstatement of two senior officials in their positions in Paris

The press revealed in late December (Le Monde, 22/23 December 2002) that the two senior officials of the Commission's representation in France who had been recalled to Brussels two months before had been reinstated in their positions in Paris.

What were the precise reasons for their recall to Brussels?

What are the precise reasons for their reinstatement in Paris?

Does the Commission believe these two measures represent sound personnel management?

Is the OLAF enquiry that called for the officials to be recalled still under way?

Is the Commission willing, when the time comes, to make known the conclusions of this enquiry?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission can only repeat what it said in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3493/02.

The decision to move two officials working in the Commission's Representation in Paris to another part of the same Directorate-General, in the interests of the service, was taken to ensure that the investigation was conducted under the best possible conditions.

This was a precautionary measure and did not in any way undermine the presumption of these individuals' innocence. The Commission did not divulge their names and regrets that the press chose to do so.

Once these precautionary measures were no longer required for the purposes of the investigation at the offices of the Commission's Representation in Paris, they were lifted, after contacts with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

The Commission took the measures so as to enable OLAF to conduct its internal investigation under the best possible conditions.

The Commission can confirm that OLAF's investigation is still under way. Parliament will be duly informed of the findings of the investigation, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)(1).

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE)and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: State aid and EU employment in maritime transport

One of the main objectives of the guidelines for State aid to maritime transport(1) is to support and safeguard EC employment. This objective was fixed against a background of a number of years with decreasing employment of EC seafarers as opposed to a substantial increase in the employment of low-wage third-country seafarers.

Prior to the adoption of the guidelines, the European institutions had on several occasions highlighted the need to support the employment of EC seafarers, for example, the Commission's communication Towards a new maritime strategy(2), and the Council resolution of 24 March 1997 on a new strategy to increase the competitiveness of Community shipping(3).

The response to this in the guidelines was therefore to enable the Member States to grant tax exemption to EC seafarers in order to reduce the competitive gap between EC seafarers and cheaper labour from third countries.

In April 2001, the Commission published a Communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers(4). The Commission mentioned the cheaper labour from third countries as a reason for the ever-decreasing employment of EC seafarers and announced, The Commission services will continue to monitor the results of the application of the guidelines and will take those results into account when drafting the next revision of the guidelines, particularly in respect of measures to encourage employment (see page 10 of the Communication).

On the basis of the above, does the Commission agree that State aid supporting the employment of third-country low-wage labour is contrary to the objective of supporting EC employment? How does the Commission intend to encourage EC employment in the maritime sector with respect to the on-going revision of the guidelines?

(1) OJ C 205, 5.7.1997, p. 5.

(2) COM(96) 81.

(3) OJ C 109, 8.4.1997, p. 1.

(4) COM(2001) 188.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

The 1997 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport indicate that Member States may help shipowning companies become more competitive by reducing their operating costs, inter alia by granting reductions or exemptions in respect of fiscal and social security burdens for seafarers.

A further aim of aid to maritime transport is to promote employment and maritime know-how in the Community, both on board and on shore.

The Commission is currently preparing a communication on the review of the 1997 guidelines which will confirm the objectives set previously and improve the instruments for achieving them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Chechen children going without schooling and Chechen newborn babies going unregistered in Azerbaijan

Following the resumption of hostilities in Chechnya in 1999, tens of thousands of Chechens have fled their country and are taking refuge in neighbouring countries, where they very often live in extremely difficult conditions. Thousands of them have found refuge in Azerbaijan. In addition to the enormous material difficulties that Chechen refugee families have to face, they have been prevented from registering Chechen children born in Azerbaijan with the civil authorities of that country over the last three years. According to well-informed sources, around 100 Chechen children have been born in Azerbaijan since the hostilities resumed. Chechen children have also been refused access to schooling.

What information is available to the Commission on the obstacles that Chechen families taking refuge in Azerbaijan encounter when registering the birth of their children born in Azerbaijan? What information is available to the Commission regarding the schooling of Chechen children in Azerbaijan? What steps has the Commission taken, or what steps does it intend to take, to ensure that Chechen children born in Azerbaijan can be registered and can attend school?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation of Chechen refugees in Azerbaijan from publicly available information sources.

According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) at the end of 2002 there were 62 registered refugees and a further 5573 with asylum applications pending.

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for drawing attention to the problem and will consider how best to address it within the context of our Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Azerbaijan. The next PCA event will be the European Parliament-Azerbaijan Parliament Cooperation Committee scheduled for 28 and 29 April 2003 in Baku.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund by the City of Frosinone

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds. The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds for the processing and marketing of agricultural products and for rural development, can the Commission state:

1. whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the EAGGF?

2. whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The question concerns the use of financing from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) by the City of Frosinone.

The EAGGF Guidance Section is part-financing the Leader+ programme in Lazio, covered in the answer to Written Question E-0863/03 submitted by the honourable member(1).

The EAGGF Guarantee Section, on the other hand, is part-financing the Rural Development Plan for the Region of Lazio for 2000-2006, approved by Commission Decision No C(2000) 2144 of 20 July 2000.

It must be stressed that the granting of aid part-financed by the Community under the above programme is the responsibility of the Italian national and regional authorities. The Commission is responsible for monitoring and checking the programme but not for the management on the ground of the different measures. As regards monitoring, the annual reports submitted under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations(2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002(3) do not indicate whether or not the City of Frosinone has received funding for projects from the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

The Region of Lazio Assessorato all'Agricoltura, the body responsible for managing the programme, can provide information on the various beneficiaries, on the submission deadlines for invitations to tender planned by the Region and, more specifically, on the City of Frosinone.

(1) See page 157.

(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by the municipality of Livorno

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to regenerate areas in industrial decline and to reduce imbalances in social and economic development, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the ERDF?

2. whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1119/03, E-1120/03,E-1121/03, E-1122/03, E-1123/03 and E-1124/03given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence are all partly eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the Tuscany SPD (single programming document) for 2000-2006.

The Tuscany SPD has been approved by Commission decision(1) and provides for ERDF financing of EUR 322,5 million for total public expenditure of EUR 804,9 million.

Since the Tuscany SPD is a programme with decentralised management, the authority responsible for carrying out operations is the Tuscany region which has laid down project selection criteria in the programming supplement and is responsible for appraising applications. The Honourable Member could therefore appropriately ask that authority for detailed information on the projects presented and financed for the municipalities of Massa, Carrara, Livorno, Pisa, Pistoia and Florence.

(1) C(2001) 2725, 27.9.2001.