ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/99

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

(13 April 1999)

Subject: Canadian Fisheries Bill C-27

Given that the Canadian Fisheries Bill C-27 has not yet been amended by the Canadian authorities and that, in the Commission's view, that bill does not comply with international law, can the Commission say, with a view to the forthcoming EU-Canada summit to be held in June, what measures it will take in connection with the summit in June if the Canadian authorities have not responded to the repeated requests to amend the above Bill C-27?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Much will depend on whether and how the Canadian draft legislation to implement the 1995 United Nations agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (Bill C-27) will have completed its passage through the legislative proceedings in the Canadian Parliament by the time of the Community-Canada Summit on 17 June 1999. Depending on these factors, it may have to be restated on that occasion that the extra-territorial aspects of Canadian fisheries legislation and, in particular, of Bill C-27 are a matter of grave concern for the Community.

In the event that Bill C-27 is not modified substantially during the course of the legislative proceedings, it will also be necessary to reserve the Community's position on those parts of the Canadian legislation which are considered to be inconsistent with international law. The Commission sincerely hopes that the Canadian government will find a way to meet the Community concerns and has underlined, in this context, that Community-Canada relations should not be allowed to be damaged by this or any other single issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/99

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: European social aid in Catalonia

Could the Commission provide information on the aid received by the department for social welfare of the Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain) in the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 1999)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in the Balearic Islands in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 165/99 by Ludivina GARCÍA ARIAS Interpretation and further legislative development of Directive 96/92/EC



Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0028



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/99 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (11 February 1999) Subject: Interpretation and further legislative development of Directive 96/92/EC Is it true that the Commission has drawn up documents after Directive 96/92/EC(1) was adopted making an interpretation possible whereby some transitional regimes concerning competition (Article 24) may be intended to recover the costs arising from operating commitments or guarantees existing before the entry into force of the Community text, and which would be impossible to recover under that directive? Can the Commission supply those documents? (1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/99

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece

Work began on the construction of a further training centre, the EKTA (WZLS) building, for the local authority in Agios Dimitrios/Pelion, province of Magnesia in 1994. According to the signboards at the site, the "Community budget" is funding the project, to the value of some DM 40 million (GRD 600 000 000). However, once the foundations had been laid, the project was halted in 1995, since when the condition of the site has deteriorated and building materials have been unlawfully removed.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Why was construction of this further training centre halted? Is the Commission contemplating a resumption of the work?

2. How much of the estimate of GRD 600 million has been paid out, and under which budget heading?

3. What form of control is being exercised over the company responsible for planning supervision, ERGODYNAMIKI GmbH?

4. Does the Commission intend to initiate action for recovery against those responsible?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0478/99

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Fire safety regulations - hotels in Spain

Do European standards exist aimed at ensuring the harmonisation of fire safety standards in hotels throughout the Union? If yes, what are they and how are they being enforced?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission is honoured to remind the Honourable Member of the answers it has already given with regard to fire safety in hotels. It thus requests the Honourable Member to refer to oral question H-1179/98 by Mr Watson during question time at the January I 1999 session of Parliament(1) and to written questions E-1423/97(2), E-2500/M97(3) and E-3477/97 by Mrs Pollack(4).

The Commission would also point out that, although at the moment there are no specific European standards with the intention of harmonising fire safety standards in hotels, several forms of action have been taken as part of the various Community policies in order to add to and assist the action taken by the Member States. For details of those activities will the Honourable Member please refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-854/98 by Mr Harrison(5).

(1) Parliamentary debates (January I 1999).

(2) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.

(3) OJ C 11, 16.4.1998.

(4) OJ C 17, 8.6.1998.

(5) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/99

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

(26 March 1999)

Subject: 1999 tariff quotas for tuna loins

Given that it would not make sense to grant new countries the preferential conditions enjoyed by the ACP and GSP-Andean Pact countries, and that opening the market to South-East Asia, i.e. to countries to which this preferential situation does not currently apply, would upset a hard-won equilibrium, does the Commission agree that the suggested opening of a new tariff quota for tuna loins for 1999 would lead to a difficult political situation with unpredictable consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

No, the Commission has observed that the imports from countries qualifying for preferential treatment (the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific - ACP States) or under the generalised system of preferences (the GSP Drugs scheme) are insufficient for the needs of the Community's canning industry.
(2000/C 27 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1550/99
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Presidential elections in Togo
Is the Commission aware that a number of members of Amnesty International have been detained by the
Togolese authorities following the publication of a report by AI which reveals compelling evidence thatintimidation, torture and extrajudicial executions were commonplace during and after the 1998 presiden-tial election campaign?
What pressure will the Commission bring to bear the Togolese authorities given the demands for
upholding democratic rights and principles placed on signatory nationals of the Fourth LomØ Conventionin Article 5?
Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission
(12 October 1999)
The Commission is aware of the report entitled Togo: Rule of Terror published by Amnesty International
on 5 May 1999. However, being unable to confirm or deny the extremely serious occurrences denouncedin the report, it would support an international inquiry, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Commission has taken a consistent stand since 1992, when it suspended financial and technical
cooperation because of grave human rights violations.
Following serious irregularities reported in the course of the presidential election in June 1998, it held
consultations with Togo. The EU informed the Togolese authorities that cooperation would not resume aslong as there continued to be blatant violations of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law,the key principles set out in Article 5 of the LomØ Convention that underpin relations between the EU andthe ACP countries.
Since then, the only projects implemented have been decentralised cooperation projects directly benefiting
the people of Togo, and projects to uphold human rights.
At the same time, the Commission intends to continue to support the mission of the European facilitators
which has brought about dialogue between the authorities and the Togolese opposition with a view toorganising direct elections in a democratic and transparent manner.
(2000/C 27 E/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/99
by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Subsidies for organic farmers
Given food scandals in Britain and, more recently, on the continent does the Commission believe that
measures which disadvantage organic farming practices are becoming increasingly untenable?
Does the Commission agree that tiering subsidies, thus enabling the farmer to have more capital to
expand, might be one approach in encouraging alternative forms of farming from conventional, intensivepractices?29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/127 Official Journal of the European Communities
(2000/C 27 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/99
by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 September 1999)
Subject: Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs
A letter issued in June 1999 by the German food industry body, BLL, states that the Belgian authorities are
declaring end products to be dioxin-free, although the proof is based only on extrapolations relating toseven PCBs. This extrapolation method may possibly be used in the used oil and lubricant field, but not inrelation to foodstuffs.
1. Has the Council been informed about this reprehensible extrapolation method being used by the
Belgian authorities?
2. Does the Council agree that no arbitrary extrapolations should be carried out, owing to the serious
potential risks posed by PCBs?
3. Does the Council share my view that tolerance levels of 1-4 pg/kg are totally absurd and arbitrary,
and cannot guarantee that risks to health will be excluded?
4. When will the Council ask the Commission to set limit values for dioxins in foodstuffs and thereby
put an end to the scandalous situation in which no limits are calculated and there is irresponsible self-regulation by the food industry?
5. Is the Council aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recent studies which
show that many more PCBs (in addition to the mere seven named over here) are classed as toxic? Has theCouncil seen these studies? What conclusions will it draw therefrom?
(2000/C 27 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1572/99
by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(8 September 1999)
Subject: Lack of limit values for dioxins and PCBs
In view of the dioxin scandal in Belgium and the fact that recital 5 of the Commission decision of 3 June
1999 noted that no maximum levels for dioxin contamination are set for individual basic ingredients and
foodstuffs and that there are no maximum levels for dioxins at international, Community or national level:
1. Why has the Council failed to request the Commission to set a limit value for PCBs, dioxins or other
chlorine compounds?
2. When will the Council correct this omission?3. When exactly can a directive or regulation containing such limit values be expected?4. Is the Council taking steps to set up an independent, neutral foodstuffs monitoring centre at EU level?
5. Is it correct that there are no EU legal provisions for either animal or plant products that provide for
maximum levels of PCBs?
Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1569/99 and E-1572/99
(29 October 1999)
The Council discussed the issue of the dioxin contamination in Belgium at the earliest opportunity, as a
result of which the Council, at its session of 14 and 15 June 1999, agreed a number of conclusions. Theissue has been kept under review by the Council at every subsequent meeting.
On these occasions, the Council heard detailed presentations by the Belgium Minister on measures being
taken in his country, and this presentation included reference to the extrapolation method.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/135 Official Journal of the European Communities
The Commission, for its part, is in favour of trying to establish synergies and increasing the consistency
between the ESAs space policy and that laid down at EU level in the Commission communicationof December 1996 entitled The European Union and Space (
1).
(1) COM(96) 617 final.
(2000/C 27 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/99
by Manuel EscolÆ Hernando (ARE) to the Commission
(8 April 1999)
Subject: Spanish policy on xenotransplants
The Council of Europes spokesman on bioethics recently cast doubt on Spanish legislation on xenotrans-
plants, describing it as posing a threat to humans.
Spanish legislation provides that researchers may conduct trials on humans involving the transplantation
of organs taken from transgenic pigs when trials with primates have proved successful and no virus
infections have been detected for a period of six months.
Does the Commission share the opinion voiced by the Council of Europes spokesman on bioethics with
regard to Spanish legislation? If so, what action will it take?
What is the Commissions view of the fact that the Spanish Minister for Health has not accepted the
moratorium on this type of research recommended by the Council of Europe?
Does the Commission share the Council of Europes view that such research should be suspended?
Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission
(7 May 1999)
Discussion of the subject of xenotransplants has been takin place within various Council of Europe bodies
for several years. In 1997, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe made a recommendation(RC(97)15) on xenotransplants calling on the Member States to regulate and register all activities relatingto basic and applied research, the breeding of animals for xenotransplants and the long-term monitoring oftransplanted subjects. Furthermore, in January 1999 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europeadopted a recommendation calling for a moratorium on xenotransplants, but this is not legally binding.Lastly, a Working Party on Xenotransplants has been jointly set up by the Council of Europe SteeringCommittees on Bioethics and on Public Health, on which the Commission has observer status.
The regulation of clinical trials is an area of national competence. However, the pooling of scientific
research efforts, in particular to evaluate the risks of infection due to xenotransplants, and research onethics is a priority under both the 4th and the 5th framework research programmes.
(2000/C 27 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/99
by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission
(8 April 1999)
Subject: Equal opportunities and the Fifth Framework Programme
Can the Commission assure me that reference will be made in the tender documents for all projects to the
equal opportunities and mainstreaming focus which Parliament added to the Fifth Framework Programme?C 27 E/24 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/99

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Use of unacceptable medieval methods of interrogation in Israel - "legalisation" of torture

Amnesty International has recently alleged that unacceptable, anachronistic methods of torture are being used in Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court is reviewing the unacceptable, medieval methods of interrogation used by the Israeli security service, Shin Bet, such as the violent shaking of detainees, depriving them of sleep for days on end, forcing them to adopt uncomfortable positions for hours, to listen to shrill noises incessantly, confining them in rooms the size of cupboards and exposing them alternately to excessive heat and excessive cold.

In what way will the Commission intercede to protect human rights and prevent the "legalisation" of torture in Israel?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 1999)

The Commission is aware that the Israeli Supreme Court has accepted the use of so-called "moderate physical pressure" by Israeli security services while questioning detainees. Such practices are subject to guidelines and conditions mainly laid down in the report, of which at least parts remain secret, of the Landau Commission of enquiry following the death of two Palestinian militiamen who had been arrested alive by the preventive security service after highjacking an Israeli bus.

The Union has repeatedly expressed its condemnation of such lax standards regarding human rights, both publicly in appropriate international fora as well as through diplomatic channels with the Israeli government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0007/99

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(19 January 1999)

Subject: Fisheries

The Franco-Spanish seminar on the fishery resources of the Bay of Biscay, which was organised by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute (IEO) and the French Institute for Sea Fishing (FREMER) and in which the Basque Institute of Fishing Science and Technology also took part, closed on Friday, 27 November 1998. The seminar's conclusions drew attention to the threat hanging over most of the fish species to be found in this area and to the urgent need for a fishery resources management plan to be drawn up for the area.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure the survival of this area, which is of great social and economic importance to the Basque Country?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The status of fish resources in the Bay of Biscay, as described during the joint French/Spanish seminar, does not differ substantially from the situation of other fish resources in adjacent areas and, generally speaking, of Community waters. In fact, some important species such as hake, megrim, anglerfish, mackerel, form exploitable stocks which extend well beyond the limits of the Bay of Biscay.

The measures foreseen for the improvement of this situation are, therefore, not exclusive to the Bay of Biscay. They comprise notably the usual limitations of catch (TACs) (Council Regulation (EC) 48/99 of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished(1)) and the strict enforcement of the measures recently adopted on technical specifications of fishing gear (Regulation (EC) 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms(2)). Other measures will also help alleviate the poor state of the stocks, such as the effort limitations (Regulation (EC) 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources(3)) and the capacity limitations specified in the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the period 1997-2001 (Commission Decisions No 119/98 to 131/98(4)). Other legislation associated with markets and socio-economic aspects is being developed in order to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector.

(1) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999.

(2) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

(3) OJ L 199, 24.8.1995.

(4) OJ L 39, 12.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: The Intervention Board Executive Agency (UK) - CAP funds

The Intervention Board Executive Agency accounts to the UK Parliament for the cost of implementing, in the United Kingdom, the market regulations and agricultural support measures of the common agricultural policy, together with association administration costs.

In response to my Question E-3331/98(1) about the 1996/97 financial year, the Commission stated it was not fully satisfied with the administration of CAP funds in the UK.

1. Is the Commission satisfied with the Intervention Board's administration of funds in the 1997/98 financial year?

2. Did the Commission find it necessary, through the clearance of accounts procedure, to refuse the reimbursement of expenditure made by the Intervention Board Executive Agency for this period, and how much expenditure was involved?

3. Will the Commission publish a summary report of the clearance of accounts procedure in relation to the UK for the 1997/98 and subsequent financial years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

The reform of the clearance of accounts foresees that the procedure for the clearance of accounts is separated into two parts as from the 1996 financial year: a first decision on the clearance of accounts concerns the truth, completeness and accuracy of the annual accounts received (Article 5(2)b of Council Regulation (EEC) 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financial of the common agricultural policy(2) - the "accounting clearance"), and a second aims to exclude from Community financing all expenditure which has not been executed in compliance with Community regulations (Article 5(2)c of Council Regulation (EEC) 729/70 - the "compliance clearance").

1. Under the accounting clearance the Commission is generally satisfied with the administration of funds in the 1997/1998 financial year. There has been a noticeable improvement over the previous year and the National audit office, the certifying body for the United Kingdom, has given an unqualified opinion on the accounts of the paying agency.

2. The accounting clearance decision for the 1997/1998 financial year has not yet been taken. It should be taken by the Commission before 30 April 1999, and will be published. The work on the compliance clearance for the 1997/1998 financial year has now begun, but any decision will not be taken for some time. Once decisions are taken they will be published.

3. A summary report is produced to accompany each clearance of accounts decision. The reports are systematically transmitted to the commission de contrôle budgétaire (Cocobu) of the Parliament. The summary report for the accounting clearance of the 1997/1998 financial exercise will be produced at the time of the clearance. In the meantime, a copy of the summary report for the 1996/1997 accounting clearance (Article 5.2.b) is being sent separately to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 53.

(2) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970.