ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/98

by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission

At official events one frequently meets officials from the various directorates-general claiming to be "representatives" of the Commission. Can the Commission explain the extent to which these officials are empowered to represent it and to express their views on its behalf? Can it also state whether these officials are required to inform the political or administrative authorities of the regions or Member States to which they travel of their presence and of the fact that they are attending these events?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Each official is required to fulfil the obligations written into the Staff Regulations under all circumstances. Naturally all these provisions apply to officials on mission. The Commission specifies that any official or other servant who takes part in an official event must be given instructions by his Director-General or Director, who will determine the role to be played - observer, speaker or organiser in advance.

The official or other servant in question must be in possession of a travel order, duly completed and signed, whether the mission is within or outside the Community. In the event of a mission to a non-member country, particularly where the official travels to take part in international negotiations, provision has been made for coordination between the relevant external relations Directorates. The procedure includes, among others, checking and authorising the mission in the first place and then coordination with the Commission delegation in the country to be visited.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2562/98

by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Use of landmines in Kosovo

What information does the Commission have about the recent laying of landmines, and, in particular, of anti-personnel mines, in the disputed area of Kosovo?

What measures is the Commission seeking with a view to ensuring that the laying of landmines is halted?

Does the Commission intend to participate in mine-clearance programmes, once the political situation allows it to do so?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

The Commission has no specific information on the use of anti-personnel landmines (APL) in Kosovo although the use of such weapons would be a very unfortunate characteristic of the situation.

The Union, at the Cardiff European Council and at subsequent meetings of the General Affairs Council, has expressed its condemnation of the violence in Kosovo, and confirmed a range of economic measures aimed at ameliorating the situation. In relation to the humanitarian aspects, the Commission has been active on the ground in Kosovo and in neighbouring states, in co-operation which other international organisations.

Neither the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nor Albania are signatories of the Ottawa Convention to ban APL and, as a general rule (there are exceptions) this is a precondition for Community assistance in demining. In any case, the Commission would not support mine actions in an on-going conflict situation.

Of course, if evidence were to come to light that anti-personnel landmines were being used, particularly where the civil population might be put at risk, this would provoke the strongest condemnation from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2270/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Extraordinary procedure at Athens Stock Exchange

Greek investors on the Athens Stock Exchange who bought shares in Hellenic Petroleum on the first day of trading (30 June 1998) were faced with an extraordinary situation which left many small investors who paid to acquire the shares not actually receiving their share certificates

The fact that the share certificates were not issued in due time to all investors produced a distortion of the market on the first day of trading in the shares which resulted in many making huge profits. As the announcement of the flotation of Hellenic Petroleum stated that shares in the company would be introduced for trading on the Athens Stock Exchange after the deadline for subscription had expired and all certificates had been issued to their holders, there are very serious implications for those responsible for these events since all the basic principles of fair competition have been violated and thousands of small investors defrauded.

What action will the Commission take to compensate for the damage suffered by thousands of investors and how will it intervene to identify those responsible for such an unprecedented situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the matters raised in his question fall completely within the area of competence of the Greek supervisory authorities, so that there is no action that Commission can usefully take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Taxation of savings income (COM(98) 295)

The Impact Assessment Form attached to this proposal states that "the impact of the proposal is ... centred on the cost of supplementary administrative responsibilities asked of the paying agents", but makes no attempt to quantify this cost.

Does the Commission agree that a quantification of this cost would be extremely useful for a consideration of the potential impact of this Directive, and will it undertake to produce one?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2310/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Waste management programmes in Greece

Has Greece complied with Community requirements for waste management programmes? If not, what action does the Commission intend to take and what might be the probable financial penalties for Greece of such non-compliance, as this is a problem directly affecting the health of its population and the effective protection of its natural environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

Directive 75/442/EEC on waste(1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC(2), requires national authorities to draw up waste management plans (Article 7). These must relate to the type, quantity and origin of waste to be recovered or disposed of, general technical requirements, any special arrangements for particular wastes and suitable disposal sites or installations.

Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste(3) refers to Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC and requires the authorities to "draw up, either separately or in the framework of their general waste management plans, plans for the management of hazardous waste and [to] make these plans public".

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste(4) requires the Member States to include a specific chapter on the management of packaging and packaging waste in the waste management plans.

Not having received the waste management programmes in accordance with the abovementioned Directives, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter of formal notice, in reply to which the said authorities sent a draft law transposing Directive 94/62/EC.

As programmes have not been set up in accordance with Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC, the Commission will press ahead with infringement proceedings against Greece.

It is the Court of Justice which decides that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation. The Member State must then (EC Treaty Article 171) take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment, failing which the Commission may bring the case before the Court and propose a penalty to be paid by the Member State. The Court alone has the authority to fix the amount, in its judgment(5). In its communication of 28 February 1997 the Commission laid down the method for calculating the penalty payment provided for in Article 171 of the Treaty(6).

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(4) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(5) OJ C 242, 21.8.1996.

(6) OJ C 63, 28.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Developments with regard to the European Energy Charter

The European Energy Charter is intended, in particular, to protect investment in the field of energy and to promote investment in the energy sector in Central and Eastern Europe. In view of the current crisis in Russia, it is very important to investors to know that their investments in Russia are secure.

According to the most recent information available, France has not yet ratified the Charter.

1. Which EU Member States and which non-member countries of the EU have not yet ratified the Charter?

2. Why has Russia not yet ratified the Charter?

3. What is the nature of France's objections?

4. Can the Commission do anything to accelerate ratification, as the European Energy Charter is an important instrument for the protection of investment in energy in Russia, and bearing in mind current economic conditions?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

1. The Member States which have not yet ratified the Energy Charter Treaty are France and Ireland. Other signatories of the Energy Charter Treaty which have not yet completed their national ratification procedures are: Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Japan, Malta, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation and Turkey. Ukraine has completed its national ratification procedure but not yet deposited its instrument of ratification with the depositary.

2. The Russian government initiated the ratification procedure for the Energy Charter Treaty in August 1996. However, up to now, the Duma has not taken up this important issue, which is still pending in its economic policy committee. On several occasions, the Commission has tried to help overcome the concerns of the Duma. In February 1997, the member of the Commission responsible for energy participated in a seminar organised for members of the Duma in order to explain and to promote the ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty by the Russian Federation. At the G8 Energy ministerial meeting on 1 April 1998 in Moscow, the Commission highlighted again the importance of ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty as soon as possible by all signatories, including and above all by the Russian Federation.

3. The Commission is not aware of any political or legal reason that poses a problem for France to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty. The procedure for ratification is pending in Parliament, after having been interrupted in 1997 when the National Assembly was dissolved. The Senate has already approved ratification.

4. The Commission has no instruments at its disposal to speed up ratification procedures in national parliaments. It can only underline the importance of ratification for the whole Energy Charter process, and especially for the creation of an investor friendly climate in the transition countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3106/98

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Written test to draw up a reserve list of administrators for the Commission

On 14 September the Commission held a written test, in 38 centres throughout the European Union, for administrators with a view to establishing a reserve list. On 23 September it decided to render this test null and void - prompted, it appears, by complaints about leaked questions and poor invigilation.

Can the Commission indicate the precise reason for rendering the written test null and void?

Is this the first time that a written test has been rendered null and void, or are there precedents? If there are precedents, why were previous written tests rendered null and void?

Can the Commission state who is responsible for what happened at various examination centres and, where appropriate, state what disciplinary measure have been taken?

What action is the Commission planning to take to prevent this in the future?

Will the Commission pay compensation to candidates who acted in good faith but who have suffered as a result? Can the Commission state how many candidates took the tests? Will the tests be held again and, if so, when?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/98

by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Central European Time

Would the Commission encourage the United Kingdom to adopt Central European time, since this would result in an enormous advantage for business, trade and commerce and the tourism industry and would reduce the number of child deaths caused by road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The role of the Community on issues relating to time has been limited to harmonising the rules concerning the functioning of the summer-time regimes, in particular the dates for the beginning and the end of the period, to facilitate the free movement of goods, services and citizens throughout the Community. The Commission is aware of considerations like those put by the Honourable Member in his question but, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, takes the view that decisions concerning the choice of time zone are best made at national level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste

1. A number of years have gone by since the publication of the report by the European Parliament's Committee of Inquiry on the Handling and Transport of Nuclear Material and the adoption of a directive on this subject. In view of the revelations that the limit values for the transport of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels are grossly exceeded, does the Commission feel it would be useful for the European Parliament to appoint another Committee of Inquiry?

2. Does the Commission agree that because the limit values for the transport of radoactive waste and spent nuclear fuels transported from the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland to France have been exceeded this constitutes contravention of Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM(1) of 3 February 1992 based on Article 31 Euratom Treaty?

What action does the Commission intend to take against this contravention?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

1. It is clearly for the Parliament to decide whether or not an enquiry should be undertaken. The Commission would, however, suggest that the following points be taken into consideration: (a) despite the number of incidents now revealed it seems clear that there was no breach of the Community dose limits; (b) the final results of the investigations by the French and German authorities are not yet available but will obviously be relevant to any decision; (c) the Commission has itself given an undertaking to examine these results once available and to consult all relevant Member States to ensure that the lessons learned are widely disseminated and appropriate actions taken at national and Community levels.

2. According to Article 3 of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community(2), "the transport operations necessary for shipment shall comply with Community and national provisions and with international agreements on the transport of radioactive material".

In the present case national provisions which are in conformity with Annex VII of the RID (Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail) have been violated by operators. The RID is Appendix B of the Convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF). Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail(3) introduces the RID as a mandatory text for national and intracommunity transport.

It is for the national authorities to ensure that the situation is rectified. The Commission will verify that the necessary measures have been taken at national level.

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.

(3) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/98

by Hans Lindqvist (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Fermented herring

From 1 July 1998, fermented herring will be covered by the same rules that apply to other fish products in the EU, which means that it may not be kept in old wooden barrels, as has been done since the 16th century, if it is to be sold in food shops, nor may it be handled on premises with wooden floors, such as old boathouses. These rules will affect a one thousand year old industry and tradition in Sweden, making the situation particularly difficult for small local producers. The EU talks of subsidiarity and not interfering in details but does the exact opposite.

Does the Commission believe that such detailed regulation is consistent with subsidiarity? If not, does it intend to block the directive on fermented herring?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2234/98 and E-2236/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1) does not contain any specific provision requiring a cement floor. It is for the national authority to judge whether a floor meets the Directive's hygiene aims. Further the Directive does not contain an explicit requirement to use plastic barrels.

Chapter III of the Annex, which sets out general conditions for establishments on land, states at point 2(a) that these establishments must have, "in areas where products are handled, prepared and processed:(a)waterproof flooring which is easy to clean and disinfect and laid down in such a way as to facilitate the drainage of the water or provided with equipment to remove the water".

Chapter IV(6)(c) and Chapter VI(2) of the Annex state, respectively, that:

"6. Salting(c) Any container used for salting or brining must be constructed in such a way as to preclude contamination during the salting or brining process.

2. Packaging materials and products liable to enter into contact with fishery products must comply with all the rules of hygiene, and in particular:

- they must not be such as to impair the organoleptic characteristics of the fishery products;

- they must not be capable of transmitting to the fishery products substances harmful to human health;

- they must be strong enough to protect the fishery products adequately."

Community legislation in this area does not aim to undermine production of a traditional Swedish delicacy, as long as it complies with the rules on food hygiene. Furthermore, the above provisions leave the Swedish authorities sufficient scope for interpretation in applying them, and the Commission therefore believes that the principle of subsidiarity has been respected.

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/98

by MaLou Lindholm (V) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Fermented herring

From 1 July 1998, fermented herring will be covered by the same rules that apply to other fish products in the EU, which means that it may not be kept in old wooden barrels, as has been done since the 16th century, if it is to be sold in food shops, nor may it be handled on premises with wooden floors, such as old boathouses. These rules will affect a one thousand year old industry and tradition in Sweden, making the situation particularly difficult for small local producers. The EU talks of subsidiarity and not interfering in details but does the exact opposite.

Does the Commission believe that such detailed regulation is consistent with subsidiarity? If not, does the Commission intend to block the directive on fermented herring?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug and its impact in the EU

It is known that on 1 January 2000 the entire world (in particular the EU) will be facing a chaotic situation. Many of the records concerning the public sector of the EU Member States, together with the financial and business sectors and the EU administration will be lost as a result of the millennium bug, i.e. the failure of existing information systems to adjust to the change of the century.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. What steps have been taken by the EU to avert the danger of the European administrative sector grinding to a halt because of this problem?

2. Has the Commission assessed the impact on the European Union finance and business sectors? What is the estimated cost?

3. What stage has been reached by preparations within the Member States and their administrations to confront the above problem on entering the twenty-first century?

4. Has the EU assumed a coordinating role in endeavouring to avert the serious consequences of the administrative disruption expected to occur in the Member States?

5. What is the exact amount of budget appropriations which have been or will be earmarked by the EU and the Member States in response to this problem?

6. Will steps be taken to inform companies of the enormous scale of the problem and provide them with incentives enabling them to forestall or overcome the problem with regard to their own records?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its communication to the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions on the year 2000 computer problem(1).

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-421/98(2), E-422/98 and E-425/98(3) and E-424/98(4) by Mr Watson.

The Commission is preparing a report for the December European Council in Vienna on the state of readiness of the Member States, which should clarify the situation.

Finally the Honourable Member may refer to the Commission's world wide web site on the matter (http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro).

(1) COM(98) 102 final.

(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 61.

(3) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 98.

(4) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 62.