ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3925/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Statements by Community official concerning accession of Cyprus

Agence Europe's daily bulletin No 7356 of 4 December 1998 (page 12) reported statements made by the head of the Commission's Enlargement Task Force, Mr Klaus van der Pas, concerning the accession of Cyprus.

Mr van der Pas stressed that he shared French concerns about "bringing into the EU a divided island, in a sort of war zone." This - to put it charitably - curious view of Mr van der Pas is "embellished" by his provocative remark that "these are fears shared by everyone". Finally, the Community official adds that "it is the Member States that are conducting the negotiations" and that, therefore, the Commission "will not make proposals that are not politically reasonable".

Will the Commission state its official position on these unacceptable views and explain on what authority Mr van der Pas speaks for "everyone" in expressing provocative views on Cyprus, a country which (in every respect) is far more advanced than any other applicant country?

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

(12 February 1999)

The Commission continues to base itself on the Union position as expressed at the opening of the accession negotiations with Cyprus. As it has done since the start of the negotiating process, the Commission will contribute actively in order to allow the negotiations with Cyprus to proceed as quickly as possible. It will do so notwithstanding persistent difficulties such as the fact that the Turkish-Cypriot community did not act up to now upon the explicit invitation to participate in the negotiations. The Honourable Member will not have failed to notice that these difficulties have led to various expressions of concern, including on behalf of certain Member States. The Commission fully shares the hope repeatedly expressed by the Union, that the accession negotiations will contribute positively to the search for a political solution to the Cyprus problem through the talks under the aegis of the United Nations which must continue with a view to creating a bi-community, bi-zonal federation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Possible increase in the number of Community initiatives

What preparations has the Commission made to cope with any Parliament and Council decision to increase the number of proposed Community Initiatives from 3 to 5 by retaining URBAN and creating Restruct?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The Commission is preparing for the next round of Community initiatives in line with its proposal for new structural funds regulations(1). If the regulations finally adopted provide for an increase in the number of Community initiatives, the Commission will undertake the necessary work in order to ensure proper implementation.

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3941/98

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Cost of publicity for the Albaicín urban pilot project

How much did the recently published leaflets, posters and other publicity material on the Albaicín-Santa Isabel la Real urban pilot project cost, in detail?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

The Albaicin urban pilot project in Granada was approved by the Commission in July 1997 under Article 10 of the European regional development fund (ERDF) Regulation(1) concerning innovative action and pilot projects. It was selected as one of 26 projects from over 500 projects submitted by cities in the Community. The criteria for selection included the innovative and demonstrative character of the project, with the aim of sharing the expertise gained in the project not just at local and regional level, but also at national and European levels.

For this reason, the promotion and diffusion of publicity and other material about the project is an important element of the overall programme and all projects have part of their budgets allocated for this purpose. In the case of the Albaicin urban pilot project, 2,5 % of the total budget has been allocated for promotion and publications. The total cost of the project is 6 million euro, of which ERDF funding is 2,95 million euro.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Export of live animals

On 18 December 1997, the Commission agreed to amend Regulation (EEC) 805/68(1) on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal. Amendments to the conditions under which live animals may be exported to third countries include the introduction of controls involving veterinary inspections at third-country entry points. Having decided deliberately to exclude animal welfare groups from being authorised to carry out such checks, even though they have been the only organisations prepared to expose cruelty in the treatment of exported animals, will the Commission indicate what procedures have been introduced to enforce the requirements of the amended Regulation and how many veterinary inspectors are to be employed for this task?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

Commission Regulation (EC) 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(2) provides that the payment of export refunds for live cattle is conditional upon compliance with Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport.

All consignments of cattle are subject to systematic checks on exit from the Community carried out by an official veterinarian of the Member State of exit. Furthermore, checks are carried out at arrival in the third country when there are grounds for suspecting breaches of the rules and on consignments selected by the exporting Member State on the basis of risk analysis.

The checks in third countries are carried out by a veterinarian of an international control and supervisory agency approved for this purpose by a Member State or by a veterinarian of an official agency of a Member State. The Member State which approved an international control and supervisory agency shall verify on regular basis or when there are serious grounds for suspicion that the conditions for approval are not met.

The Commission verifies the manner in which checks on animal welfare are performed by the national authorities.

In the framework of the restructuring of the Commission's food and veterinary office, a group of three veterinarians has been created. One of them has been working in this field for a considerable time, and the other two will be recruted in the near future from the list of candidates.

(1) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2067/98

by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Live exports

How does the Commission intend to ensure traders who receive export refunds and who export live cattle from the EU to the Middle East and North Africa treat the animals in a humane way?

Does the Commission have any intention to encourage more external-EU animal exports on the hook rather than on the hoof?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

In order to increase the degree of protection to cattle being transported to third countries, at the end of last year the Council adopted a proposal from the Commission, under which the payment of export refunds will be subject to compliance with the provisions on the protection of animals during transport (see Regulation (EC) 2634/97 of 18 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal(1)). Implementing rules have since been adopted by the Commission in March 1998 (see Regulation (EC) 615/98 of March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport(2)). Important elements are that each consignment of cattle will be checked when leaving the Community, while at arrival consignments of cattle will be checked on a regular basis or when there are grounds for suspecting particular risks by an independent vet. These rules will apply from 1 September 1998.

The Commission is not currently proposing to adopt any measures to discourage live exports which respect the applicable animal welfare rules. Export of live bovine animals is a traditional trade and as internal prices in the Union are above the third country prices, an export refund is provided. Export refunds have been paid since the beginning of the common market organisation for beef in 1968. In certain third countries there is a specific demand for imports of live animals. If the Union does not offer live animals for sale, other countries will do so and the Community will lose that market.

Export refunds for beef and live animals are fixed at least every three months and published in the Official journal. The export refund paid on beef is differentiated. The rate of refund varies according to destination. The present refund level paid for live animals other than pure-bred breeding animals to the destinations with the highest refunds are ECU 52/100 kg live weight for male cattle and ECU 22,50/100 kg live weight for female cattle, while for fresh meat of male adult bovine animals the refund rate is ECU 110,50/100 kg carcase weight.

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1997.

(2) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3376/98

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Playground safety standards

Every year thousands of children are injured in playgrounds which do not meet safety standards. In Sweden, where the rules in this regard are, in fact, among the strictest in the Union, reports show that 7 percent of the total number of accidents involving children up to the age of twelve occur in poorly designed and maintained playgrounds. New European standards are being drawn up. In what way does the Commission intend to ensure compliance with future safety standards?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

The Commission is aware of certain safety problems involving playground equipment. Playground equipment falls under the general safety requirements of Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety(1). This Directive implies that playground equipment must be safe and specifies that, in the absence of specific Community or national rules, the conformity of a product be assessed having regard to voluntary national standards giving effect to a European standard, where it exists. The Directive also implies that the Member States have the obligation to carry out checks of the products and to take appropriate action against products that are not safe.

New European standards for playground equipment are under development. Whereas purely voluntary standards do not provide legally enforceable guarantee for consumers, it has to be noted that the European standards for the equipment in question must be taken into account in assessing the safety of the equipment within the framework of Directive 92/59/EEC.

Stricter market surveillance by national authorities is considered to be the most important improvement needed in order to ensure consumer safety for this equipment. Such surveillance must in this case also cover equipment already taken into use. The single market action plan(2) of 4 June 1997, and the Commission working paper on enforcement of European consumer legislation(3) highlight the importance of effective enforcement, the need for sufficient human and financial resources at Member States level in this area, and announce specific actions to promote more effective surveillance. The Commission will also consider reinforcing the requirements of Directive 92/59/EEC concerning market surveillance, within the framework of a proposal for the revision of that Directive, which is planned for 1999.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2) CSE(97)1 final.

(3) SEC(98) 527 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/98

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Infringement of Community law and more efficient operation of the market in Greece

As the Commission indicated in reply to my written question (P-2344/98 of 5 August 1998)(1), Greek Law No 2538/97 prohibiting the use of ingredients from different areas in certain food products (dairy products, olive oil, packaged fruit juices, honey and packaged meat products) is an infringement of Articles 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty. The Commission accordingly launched infringement proceedings requesting further information. One year after its adoption, the law in question is still applicable, causing uncertainty and creating major anomalies in the production and marketing sectors.

Since the Greek authorities now recognise the infringement, having provided written assurances in July to the Commission "that the measure at issue... would have to be repealed following an amendment tabled by the national parliament" (as indicated by the Commission in reply to my question) how is to possible that no action has been taken to date by the relevant authorities?

Can the Commission remain inactive in view of this infringement and why does it not investigate the extent to which the Greek authorities are complying with the assurances they have given concerning the repeal of this law, which provides for checks, sanctions and penalties, causing severe disruption of the market?

What steps will the Commission take to bring an immediate end to the current climate of uncertainty on the Greek market because of this law and what action will it take to ensure definitively the efficient functioning of the market and facilitate business planning in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The Greek authorities have indicated, by letter of 9 November 1998, that they are taking steps to adopt legislation repealing the offending provisions of Law 2538/97. The adoption of the legislation in question should be completed in the course of 1999. Furthermore, in the light of the abovementioned draft legislation, the administration will meanwhile refrain from applying the relevant provisions of Law 2538/97.

On 30 January 1999 the Commission sent a new letter to the Greek authorities asking them (i) to give details of the timetable envisaged for the adoption of the legislation, and (ii) to indicate whether an administrative circular has been published for the attention of the official control authorities and the economic operators stipulating that the offending provisions of Law 2538/97 are no longer applicable.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 157.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3479/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Subject: Approval of projects carried out by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) funded by budget line B7-6000

The establishment of the joint service for the management of external cooperation instruments continues to be affected by a lack of transparency regarding the co-financing of NGO projects under budget line B7-6000.

Can the Commission say:

- which department will sign contracts with the NGOs on behalf of the Commission, and hence finalise the decision-making procedure;

- how will the actual flow of information be guaranteed between the joint service (responsible, inter alia, for monitoring and assessing the projects) and DG VIII's A 4 unit, which is to base its relations with the NGOs on these assessments?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 1999)

The Development Directorate (unit VIII/A/4 - Civil Society and NGOs; decentralised cooperation) will be responsible for overseeing the decision-making procedure for implementing the appropriations, although it will also involve desk officers and the delegations in the countries concerned by the relevant projects. When the appraisal process is complete, a contract will be signed - until further notice this will be done by the Director of Directorate A, in DG VIII. The Joint Relex Service (unit SCR/C/5 - NGOs, food aid, population matters, Aids) will be responsible for implementing the contract.

Units VIII/A/4 and SCR/C/5 have made a concerted effort to set up a mutual information system to ensure that any important data likely to influence a decision on whether an NGO is eligible is available at the right time. The assessment reports will automatically be sent to DG VIII/A/4. In addition, the two units will hold monthly meetings chaired by the two heads of unit, which should ensure an appropriate exchange of information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Protectionism and barriers to free trade on the Italian digital television market

An outcry has been caused in Italy by the Murdoch television group's entry onto the digital television market in the form of the newly-established company News Corp Europe and the draft agreement between the new company and Telecom Italia, which already has a presence on the market through its Stream company. The Murdoch group's new company would operate in Italy alongside the two existing structures: Telecom Italia, with Stream, and Canal Plus, with Telepiù and D+.

The Italian Government's reaction to the proposed agreement between Telecom Italia and Murdoch has been extremely negative, since such a move would place the Italian partners in both structures in a subordinate position.

The Communications Minister, Salvatore Cardinale, has expressed concern about Murdoch's disproportionate economic power and said that a period of "protectionism" is required in order to enable Rai and Mediaset to develop their own technologies and become competitive with the other international television groups.

Given the above, would the Commission:

- check that the agreement between Telecom Italia and the Murdoch group company complies fully with the rules on free competition;

- establish whether the Italian Government's "protectionist" attitude is itself not in breach of European competition rules, and state what action it intends to take should this prove to be the case.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

There are at present two digital pay-TV operators on the Italian market. Tele+ is controlled by Canal+ and provides pay-TV services by satellite and microwave link. Stream, which is currently controlled by Telecom Italia, provides cable and satellite services.

From a competition viewpoint, Tele+ occupies an undisputed dominant position in Italy, with over 90 % of the pay-TV market. This is due to the fact that it began operating its pay-TV platform well before Stream and also because it owns the most important broadcasting rights, such as those over films produced by the major US studios and those over major sporting events.

The Commission is following closely developments on the market in view of the proposed link-up between the Murdoch Group and Stream. It will continue to ensure that the Community rules are properly implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Community fraud and political malpractice

The 5 November issue of the Italian news weekly "Panorama" reports on the case of the theft of refugee aid provided by ECHO, the Community agency that manages humanitarian aid.

ECHO is responsible for overseeing the effectiveness of Community action, and in the space of a few months it has had to deal with Bosnia, the African Great Lakes region and Kurdistan. This resulted in a large amount of work and a threefold increase in the agency's budget. It is now responsible for monitoring and overseeing more than 1 400 projects. In order to cope with the increased workload an agency was used, which had already been mentioned in connection with the Bertholet (Commissioner Cresson's dentist) affair, the Perry-Lux agency, currently under investigation by the Luxembourg courts.

UCLAF itself, the Community's anti-fraud unit, is currently carrying out an investigation into the director of ECHO and a series of contracts given to Perry-Lux, one of which goes back to 1993 and of which no trace can be found, another worth ECU 500 million (the equivalent of one billion lire) was actually spurious, and others, worth ECU 2,3 million are still the subject of investigations.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to comment on these revelations in order to clarify the situation?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Rare diseases

At last, the subject of rare diseases and "orphan" drugs is being discussed at European level. Few people realise that rare diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus eritematosus, etc.) are actually well-known diseases despite their low incidence.

Does the Commission agree that it would be appropriate to conduct a comparative study of the situation in the various Member States on the basis of which to launch a series of joint initiatives to address all the scientific and social issues involved?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The Commission communication and proposal for a public health action programme 1999-2003 on rare diseases(1), aimed to provide knowledge about rare diseases especially for patients, health professionals and researchers; to establish, foster and strengthen voluntary organisations involved in supporting people directly or indirectly affected by rare diseases; and to ensure an efficient handling of the problem of clusters, which is of key importance for rare diseases.

The proposal is still under the codecision procedure (conciliation). Subject to approval by Council and Parliament, the Commission will be in a position to start implementation of the programme in 1999, as foreseen in its proposal.

The Commission was unable to conduct in 1998 a comparative study of the situation in Member States concerning rare diseases since execution of budget line B3-4304 (health and wellbeing) was blocked by the budgetary authority as regards preparatory actions on rare diseases.

(1) COM(97) 225 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3841/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Publication entitled "Extremists in Europe"

In view of the fact that the publication of the book entitled "Extremists in Europe" was partly funded by the Commission.

Would the Commission state:

1. How many copies of the publication were printed?

2. In how many languages?

3. What the Commission's financial contribution was?

4. Who was responsible for deciding that this publication was eligible to receive Community funding, and on what grounds did he or she do so?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 1999)

1. The publication "Extremists in Europe", which focussed mainly on Islamic fundamentalism and its networks on the continent, had a print run of 2 000.

2. It was published in French and English (1 000 copies in each language).

3. The Commission's financial contribution was EUR 39 160.

4. The subsidy request for this publication was submitted in 1997 in the framework of appropriations under budget line B3-4114 on "Measures to combat racism". It was on the initiative of the Parliament itself that, since 1993, an amount has been entered each year in the budgetary comments to fund measures to combat racism taken by the Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Anti-Semitism, which produced this publication.