ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/97 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Sale of newspapers at the European Parliament's newsstands

Despite efforts made by the publishers, Luxembourg newspapers cannot be sold at the European Parliament's newsstands in Strasbourg and Brussels or at the Commission in Brussels.

The reason would seem to be the excessively high charges imposed by the firms responsible for supplying these newsstands with foreign newspapers.

Does the Commission not consider that this means that the firms which have a monopoly in the countries concerned are contravening freedom of movement and freedom of the press in the European Union?

Has the Commission already studied the distribution of the daily and weekly press in Europe with regard to the opportunities for all publications, even those from small countries, to be sold outside the country of origin?

If the Commission has ascertained infringements of the principles of the internal market, does it intend to take steps to remedy the situation and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The Commission has not received any complaints or specific evidence as to improper practices by press distribution services which have the effect of preventing the cross-border sale of press publications in general and Luxembourg newspapers in Strasbourg and Brussels in particular.

The Commission has now received the results of a survey which looked at press distribution systems in all the Member States, how they interact across borders and how they affect price structures. It is now in the process of analysing these results, which, while highlighting other factors, bring out the impact of distribution charges on cross-border sales of newspapers.

If the Commission were to establish the existence of restrictions or improper practices incompatible with the rules on competition and the operation of the single market, it would take all appropriate steps under the Treaty and would inform Parliament accordingly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Elections in Cambodia

Can the Commission give details of what measures it will be taking to assist the holding of elections in Cambodia next year?

Over the past few months, there have been persistent reports of human rights abuses in Cambodia. These have included the intimidation and harassment of political activists and the imprisonment of many journalists and human rights activists.

As a result of these abuses, fears have been expressed that the elections may not be held in a peaceful atmosphere.

Will the Commission be taking any particular steps to ensure that the safety of candidates participating in the elections is guaranteed?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The Commission allocated ECU 9.5 million to the electoral process in Cambodia after receiving the Member States' approval at the meeting of the ALA Committee on 11 September. Some ECU 7 million will be used to draw up an electoral register and the remainder will go towards the arrangements for a system of observers.

The Commission is aware of the political situation in Cambodia and has been closely monitoring it with the Member States, the United Nations and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean). It has also kept a watchful eye on human rights abuses which have already been exposed. It has introduced a specific clause suspending its support for the elections in the event of further abuses in order to discourage an electoral climate which might foster intimidation and violence.

Measures to protect candidates' safety will require close cooperation with each representative of the international community involved in the elections and, more particularly, with those persons responsible for gathering information, examining cases and applying the procedures intended to protect candidates in the elections.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3391/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 October 1997)

Subject: Business tourism

In 1996 the Commission had a report on business tourism prepared by Horwath & Axe. What, in detail, has been done to implement its recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

In the spring of 1996, the Commission published the executive summary of the report 'Business and conference tourism in the European Economic Area'. The executive summary has since been widely disseminated to interested organisations and individuals, as well as presented at three important international events.

The report highlighted the significant level of turnover arising from business tourism, estimated at 162 000 MECU. In addition, induced activity is considered to account for upwards of twice this sum.

Despite an optimistic outlook for future development of the market, the report concluded that the European business tourism industry needed to establish a common policy and global strategy to achieve its goals. While the problems identified were not exclusive to business tourism, among the difficulties mentioned were a real lack of statistics and information on market data and trends at all levels, a number of fiscal and legal barriers, a critical need for specialised skills training, scattered promotional programmes and lack of clarity in the definition of business tourism activities.

While most of the issues raised are primarily for the industry itself, the Community can also make a contribution to the situation. In its proposal for a Council decision on a first multiannual programme to assist European tourism 'Philoxenia' (1997-2000) ((OJ C 222, 31.7.1996 as amended by OJ C 13, 14.1.1997. )) the Commission proposes to establish a framework within which measures can be taken to stimulate the quality and competitiveness of European tourism. The immediate objectives specified in the programme, namely improving knowledge in the field of tourism, improving the legislative and financial environment for tourism, raising quality in European tourism and increasing the number of tourists from third countries, provide ample scope for addressing the issues raised in the report. The Commission's proposal is currently under discussion in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Exemption of gauze from anti-dumping duties

The Commission has opened a new procedure for anti-dumping duties on imports of unbleached cotton textile manufactured in Egypt, India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan and Turkey.

According to the Commission statement the product being dumped is unbleached cotton pile fabric with a cotton content of at least 85% by weight intended principally for the clothing, linen and furniture industries. Strangely enough, gauze for medical dressings was exempted from the anti-dumping duties. This is encouraging the import of millions of square metres of gauze from India threatening to destroy completely the Greek gauze industry and deal a serious blow to cotton producers in the Union.

By way of information Greece consumes 20 million square metres of gauze per year, that is to say 650 tonnes of cotton fibre or 2600 tonnes of unginned cotton.

The disappearance of the Greek gauze industry will mean laying to waste 860 hectares of land currently used for cotton cultivation and will put at least 500 Greeks out of work.

Can the Commission give us the reasons for exempting medical gauze from anti-dumping duties and what action it intends to take before the Greek gauze industry disappears completely, reducing its workers to unemployment?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (23 December 1997)

As mentioned in the written question, the Commission, on 11 July 1997, initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.

This proceeding was initiated following a written complaint by the cotton and allied textile industries (Eurocoton), on behalf of the Community industry. The complaint covered all flat unbleached grey cotton fabrics, containing at least 85% cotton. It specifically excluded fabrics for the manufacture of bandages, dressing and medical gauze.

It should further be noted that in the previous proceeding concerning unbleached cotton fabrics, it was concluded that medical gauze should be considered as a product different to flat unbleached grey cotton fabrics in view of its different physical characteristics, use and consumer perception. In view of this finding, and after an examination of the prima facie evidence submitted in the current complaint, the Commission decided to open an anti-dumping investigation into alleged injurious dumping practices referring to the product as presented in this complaint.

Should the Community gauze industry - including the Greek manufacturers - be suffering from any injurious dumping practice, a complaint can be submitted to the Commission, including prima facie evidence of injurious dumping. If after an assessment of the information presented it were to be apparent that there is sufficient evidence to initiate a proceeding, the Commission would do so within a period of 45 days after the lodging of the complaint.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3315/97 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Aid for Albania

Reports have recently come to my attention concerning the shortcomings of EU aid to Albania.

Will the Commission provide information on the following points:

1. How much money has so far been made available by the EU for Albania (through the PHARE and ECHO Programmes)?

2. How much have the individual districts received?

3. How much has been allocated to health centres?

4. How much money has so far been paid to Albanian health centres for completed projects?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

1. Total Community assistance to Albania, during the period 1991/1996, amounts to 550 MECU, of which 203 MECU through PHARE and 80.7 MECU humanitarian aid. As a result of the early 1997 political events, the Commission was obliged to interrupt most of the PHARE programmes. However, following the political stabilisation, full resumption of PHARE assistance is expected to take place in line with the priority conditionalities identified in the recovery strategy and under the international agenda for Albania prepared by the Community for the international community. In 1997, the PHARE assistance will reach 70.4 MECU and the humanitarian aid will amount to 17.0 MECU. In future, assistance from PHARE and other donors will depend on the degree of co-operation provided by the Albanian government and progress made in key reform. Leverage to ensure that the government effectively fulfils conditionalities will also be exercised through the budgetary support which the Community intends to grant to Albania (14.9 MECU from PHARE and 10 MECU from food security).

2. In Albania, there are three PHARE programmes specifically planned on the basis of districts:

- the PHARE Albania-Greece cross border co-operation (CBC) programme concerns the southern district bordering Greece (from Saranda to Korça);

- the PHARE Albania-Italy cross border co-operation programme concerns the Adriatic coast (from Vlora to Durres);

- the local community development programme (LCDP) concerns the central and north Albanian districts.

The two CBC programmes are focused above all on infrastructure projects for an overall budget of 58.0 MECU (1994-1996). Furthermore, 20.0 MECU have been allocated for 1997. The LCDP finances small regional projects for an overall budget of 8.5 MECU (1995). Also for this programme, a further allocation of 5.0 MECU is foreseen in the country operational programme 1997 for urgent rehabilitation.

3. For the health sector, the PHARE assistance amounts to 23.0 MECU. During the 1997 crisis, the PHARE assistance was partly suspended, but humanitarian aid of 7.0 MECU (food and medical aid) was implemented. A further humanitarian aid of 10.0 MECU is also foreseen in 1997. From the total of 17.0 MECU committed this year, 10.0 MECU approximately will go to the health sector (urgent medicines, medical equipment and urgent rehabilitation).

4. Health sector in the PHARE national programme

MECU

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3577/97 by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Involvement of organizations in the selection of FFH zones

The primary objective of the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) is to preserve and promote bio-diversity. The selection of FFH zones is aimed at creating a European environmental network of zones encompassing certain habitats of specific plant and animal species. Article 2(3) provides that measures adopted pursuant to this Directive must take account of economic, social, cultural, regional and local considerations.

1. Can the Commission say to what extent groups such as nature and environmental associations can be involved in the selection of FFH zones?

2. The FHH Directive contains no provisions regarding national arrangements for the selection of such zones. Can the Commission say what provisions there are in the various Member States for the involvement of social groups, if such associations may be involved in the selection of FFH zones?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

In Article 3 and 4 and Annex III of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.07.92, p. 7. )), the process of the creation of the European network Natura 2000 is described.In Annex III the 'Criteria for selecting sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance and designation as special areas of conservation' are given and here a division into two stages is foreseen. Stage 1 is an assessment at national level and ends with a list of proposed sites of Community importance. Stage 2 is an assessment at Community level and ends with an agreed list of the sites of Community importance (SCI).

Stage 1 falls completely into the competence of the Member State. Therefore questions for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or regional governments (such as Bundesländer) are also under the responsibility of the Member State.

In Stage 2, the Commission assesses the Community importance and the coherence of the proposals, following recommendations from scientific meetings specific to the biogeographical regions. In these meetings, the European habitat forum takes part, as a qualified umbrella NGO in the field of protection of species and habitats, as well as experts from the Member States and the Community and independent scientists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Cruelty to animals

A further example of cruelty to man's best friend par excellence occurred on an Alitalia chartered aircraft which was transporting dogs to be used for a shooting party in the Crimea.

Owing to an error by the cargo handlers, the dogs were carried in the hold with the result that 27 out of the 30 put on board suffocated to death in agony because there was no oxygen.

This episode once again makes cruelty to animals a topical concern.

Will the Commission issue a Directive to ensure that proper conditions are laid down for the transport of animals and the aircraft used have suitable holds equipped with an oxygen supply?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

The law which applies to the transport of domestic dogs depends on whether or not the transport is of a commercial nature.

Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )) includes rules on the transport of dogs by air, though the Directive does not apply to transport of animals which is not of a commercial nature or to any individual animal accompanied by a person who has responsibility for the animal during transport. For non commercial transport of animals the national rules of Member States apply. In the case of air transport by an airline which is a member of the International air transport association (IATA) the rules of that organisation are also applicable.

For commercial transport of animals, Chapter I of the Annex, point E from Directive 91/628/EEC, special provisions for transport by air, paragraph 27 requires that 'Animals shall be transported in containers, pens or stalls appropriate for the species, complying at least with the most recent IATA live animal regulations'.

The IATA regulations require precautions to be taken to avoid extremely high or low temperatures on board and severe fluctuations of air pressure and include provisions concerning the construction, ventilation and stacking densities of combiners. These regulations are appropriate to safeguard the welfare of the animals. The Commission therefore believes that there is no need to add requirements to the IATA regulations for the transport of animals by air, as the Honourable Member suggests.

It is not possible from the brief statement of facts to determine whether the incident occurred as a result of a breach of the requirements of the Directive or was caused by an accidental breakdown of equipment.

Day to day enforcement of Directive 91/628/EEC is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission is, nevertheless, prepared to intervene with Member States in appropriate cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3259/97 by Rosemarie Wemheuer (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Manufacture and export of instruments of torture

At the end of July 1997 the press indicated that Great Britain had adopted amended guidelines for worldwide trade in weapons manufactured in Britain. The export of instruments of torture is also forbidden.

1. In the individual Member States of the EU is there a definition of which goods in the broadest sense are designated 'instruments of torture'?

2. In which Member States of the EU are instruments of torture produced and marketed?

3. Does the EU have a legal basis which can be used to prohibit the manufacture, marketing and in particular export of instruments of torture?

4. Were there joint European initiatives in the past in this area or are any European initiatives planned for the near future?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1997)

1. and 2. The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer these questions.

3. Any legal basis within the Community to prohibit the production, sale and export of torture instruments is to be found primarily in the law of Member States.

Article 36 of the EC Treaty allows Member States to prohibit or restrict imports, exports or goods in transit within the Community on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, as well as the protection of health and life of humans. In respect of exports to third countries, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 establishing common rules for exports ((OJ L 324, 27.12.1969. )) allows Member States to prohibit or restrict exports to these countries on the same grounds. An export prohibition for the Community as a whole could be based on Article 113 of the EC Treaty.

4. In earlier replies to written questions No E-664/92 by Mr David ((OJ C 247, 24. 9.1992. )) and E-741/97 by Mr Nicholson ((OJ C 139, 5. 6.1995. )) on the export of torture instruments, the Commission already pointed out that everything, depending on circumstances, could become an instrument of torture even if originally it has not been devised for such a purpose. There are therefore clear limitations to what can be done by legislation to prevent the production, sale or export of goods that are eventually used for purposes of torture.

In the light of information obtained from Member States on their definition of torture instruments and their national policy regarding production, sale and export, the Commission would nevertheless be prepared to consider an initiative aimed at a common approach.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3515/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Intervention stocks

What will it cost to destroy the 600 000 tonnes of beef currently in EU intervention storage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

The Commission would like to emphasize the theoretical nature of the Honourable Member's question, since it is not the Commission's intention to incinerate this beef.

The costs of incineration of beef would in particular depend on the capacity available and the distance the meat needs to be transported. The bids between 300 ECU per tonnes and 1200 ECU per tonnes received by the United Kingdom intervention agency implementing Regulation (EC) No 1757/96 of 10 September 1996 adopting exceptional additional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom ((OJ L 230, 11.9.1996. )) may serve as a guideline.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: 'Flower wars' in Cologne: interference with freedom of competition

Is the Commission aware of the reports in the German and Dutch press ((Including Bürger-Echo, 23 March 1996 and 6 July 1997; Express 30 May 1996; Kölner Stadtanzeiger, 21 September 1996; De Telegraaf, 2 and 21 November 1996; Rundschau, 8 May 1997. )) concerning the determined efforts of Cologne City Council to close a florists' business run by two young Dutch entrepreneurs at Cologne's Western Cemetery?

Is the Commission aware of the illogical argument used by Cologne City Council to justify terminating the florists' lease and threatening to have their stall forcibly removed, citing 'serious considerations of city-wide importance' ((Rundschau, 24 September 1996. )) after the florists had allegedly breached a verbal agreement to restrict their selection of goods?

Does the Commission endorse the view of a majority of the Cologne-Ehrenfeld District Council representatives that the termination of the lease constitutes an 'interference with freedom of competition' ((Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, 26 June 1996 and 26 November 1996. )) prompted by complaints from long-standing competitors about the Dutch florists' lower prices?

In the light of the above, what is the Commission's opinion of the statement by the head of Cologne-Ehrenfeld District Office that 'It is only right and proper that we should consider the interests of long-standing local taxpayers' ((Express, 27 June 1996. )).

Is the Commission prepared, not least in view of the high level of public interest in this matter, to investigate whether the action taken by Cologne City Council infringes the freedom of establishment within the EU laid down in Articles 52 and 53 of the EEC Treaty and the ban on discrimination in Article 6?

If so, what measures will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)

The Honourable Members request the Commission's views on a civil dispute between Cologne City Council and two Dutch florists over the lease of a shop in Cologne. According to the information they provide, this lease was terminated by the City Council because of complaints from German competitors about the much lower prices charged by the Dutch florists. By way of a Reply to the various problems raised, the Commission would point out that it has no knowledge of the conduct of the City Council in the matter and, not being in possession of all the underlying facts, it is unable to express a detailed opinion.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Members to provide it with any information which might enable it to assess this case.