ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2894/00

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Ear-tags for cattle

The EU requires farmers to mark cattle with ear-tags. This applies even to animals of indigenous breeds which do not receive EU support. What function do ear-tags serve in such cases?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

With the adoption of Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals(1) Member States should already ensure that bovine animals shall be identified with an eartag bearing a code, which makes it possible to identify each animal individually as well as the holding on which it was born.

Directive 92/102/EEC has two basic objectives: the localisation and the tracing of animals for veterinary purposes, which is of crucial importance for the control of contagious diseases; and the management and supervision of livestock premiums as part of the reform of the agricultural policy.

Furthermore experience and notably the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis had shown that the implementation of Directive 92/102/EEC had not been entirely satisfactory and needed further improvement. It was necessary to adopt a specific regulation for bovine animals in order to reinforce the provisions of the Directive.

Hence Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products(2) was adopted. According to this Regulation bovine animals shall be identified by an eartag applied to each ear and accompanied by a passport throughout any movement. These requirements are upheld in Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation No 820/97(3).

(1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

(2) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.

(3) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3017/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: EU legislation on hygienic cutlery wrapping

Does the Commission have any information on whether there is presently any EU legislation pending or passed on the hygienic presentation of wrapped cutlery in hospitals? Is there a statutory requirement for fully wrapped and sealed cutlery in hospitals?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

There is no Community legislation regarding the hygienic presentation of cutlery wrapping in hospitals. Likewise, there is no statutory requirement for fully wrapped and sealed cutlery in hospitals. As health care systems are a national responsibility, national legislation may exist for each Member State in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2644/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Trade

In May 2000 a proposal was submitted to the Council regarding the setting of definitive anti-dumping duties for certain components of TV camera equipment from Japan. After an investigation lasting more than two years, carried out by the Commission with the cooperation of European manufacturers of these products, the Commission proposed that anti-dumping measures be taken.

That proposal was rejected at the meeting of the Council's trade group of 8 May 2000.

Can the Council say on what grounds that decision was based?

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer on his question number E-2295/00.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/00

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Subject: Effects on health of hydrogen sulphide

What information does the Commission have on the long term effects of exposure to hydrogen sulphide gas from landfill sites on human health and in particular on the eyes and lungs? What measures if any have been taken to minimise the risks of exposure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The characteristic smell of rotten egg produced by this gas and irritation of the nasal and olfactory membranes are detectable at a concentration of 0,05 parts per million (ppm). Human toxicity occurs at a concentration of 150 ppm (paralysis of the olfactory nerve). A pulmonary oedema develops at a concentration of 300 ppm with loss of consciousness shortly followed by death at a concentration of 500 ppm. Hydrogen sulphide is classified in the Community as extremely flammable, very toxic and dangerous to the environment.

At present the treatment of waste is regulated by Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975(1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste(2), in particular by its Article 4, which states that waste must be disposed of without endangering human health or the environment.

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste(3), which will become applicable by 16 July 2001, lays down specific requirements for landfills. The overall objective of the Directive is to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on human health or the environment from the landfilling of waste. Negative effects from landfilling arise mainly from emissions of landfill gas and leachate into the surrounding environment. Landfill gas and leachate are produced by the degradation of biodegradable waste under anaerobic conditions. To minimise such emissions, one of the Directive's main objectives is for Member States to draw up strategies to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfills. It also sets precise targets for the reduction of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills. To achieve these targets Member States will in particular have to increase recycling and composting of biodegradable waste, the production of biogas and other forms of recovery. Furthermore, the Directive provides that landfill gas must be collected from all landfills where biodegradable waste is received and that the landfill gas must be treated and used. If the gas collected cannot be used to produce energy, it must be flared.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2686/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 98/44/EC

Two Member States, Italy and the Netherlands, have brought an action before the Court of Justice concerning Directive 98/44/EC(1). Moreover, the opinion delivered by the French National Bioethics Committee on 8 June 2000 expresses grave reservations about the substance of the Directive, among other things because the legislative text fails to make a proper distinction between invention and discovery.

1. Does the Commission not consider that it would be useful to await the Court ruling on the appeal by Italy and the Netherlands before instituting infringement proceedings against Member States which are not transposing the Directive into their national law?

2. Does it not believe that it should accept the opinion of the French National Bioethics Committee and therefore revise the wording of the Directive without delay?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

1. The Netherlands, backed by Italy, has brought before the Court of Justice an action for the annulment of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Further to this action, the Netherlands has also initiated proceedings for interim measures to suspend the above Directive.

The President of the Court dismissed this request in an Order dated 25 July 2000 on the grounds, in particular, that it was unlikely that any patents would be granted during the period between the entry into force of the Directive(30 July 2000)and the Court issuing its judgment. Moreover, for requests made before the entry into force of the Directive, the Netherlands may grant patents containing a resolutory clause relating to a possible annulment of the Directive. Therefore, there are no serious or irrevocable reasons to justify deferring the transposal of this Directive into national law.

2. Furthermore, the Directive makes a clear distinction between an invention and a discovery. The mere discovery of genes cannot, under any circumstances, be the subject of patent protection (Article 5(1)). This Directive is in keeping with general patent law which precludes even temporary ownership of mere discoveries.

A gene can only be entitled to patent protection if it has been isolated, for example, by means of technical processes which have made it possible to identify, purify, classify and reproduce it outside the human body.

Moreover, a patent can only be granted for such inventions in as far as the general requirements for patentability have been fulfilled, i.e. the invention must be new, involve an inventive step, and be susceptible of industrial application.

Article 5(3) of the Directive states, in this respect, that the industrial application must be disclosed in the patent application. Therefore, a mere sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), with no indication of a function and containing no technical information, is not a patentable invention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3177/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Transparency

Since it took office, the Prodi Commission has made repeated promises regarding transparency. Transparency in the management of public affairs would require that no meetings be held in secret and that, in any case, the substance of all meetings be made public.

It has emerged from Spanish press reports that the Spanish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Rato, travelled incognito to Brussels on 14 September 2000 to hold a meeting with Mr Monti.

In the interests of transparency, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Was a meeting held between Mr Monti and Mr Rato on 14 September 2000?

2. Was the meeting a normal scheduled appointment for Mr Monti or was secrecy requested by the Spanish side?

3. Did Mr Rato bring pressure to bear regarding any matters currently being dealt with by the Commission?

4. If so, what were the matters concerned and what was he seeking to achieve?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

1. The Member of the Commission with responsibility for competition met Mr Rato, second Vice-President of the Spanish Government on 14 September 2000.

2. The meeting had been planned for quite some time. As Mr Rato was in Brussels on that day and the Member of the Commission with responsibility for competition had no prior engagements that evening, the meeting was organised quickly. The Spanish authorities certainly did not request the meeting to be kept secret.

3. and 4. The meeting discussed the costs of transition to competition in the Spanish electricity sector (CTC) and was part of normal contacts between the Commission and the Member States for handling state aid cases. No pressure was brought to bear, it was simply a matter exchanges of information and discussions on various points of view. The Honourable Member must be aware that any such pressure would have been unacceptable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/00

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Pollution of the River Segura (Murcia-Spain)

Pollution of the river Segura (Murcia-Spain) affects the populations of Murcia, Orihuela, the Vega Media and the Vega Baja in the Murcia region and Alicante in the Valencian Autonomous Community; it is a serious problem, and one that is being solved only very slowly by the relevant authorities.

In February this year the installation and operation of purification plants for waste from Las Pedanías de Baños y Mendigo, La Murta, Lobosillo, La Tercia, Gea y Truyols y Cabezo de la Plata was approved, with funding from the ERDF, in order to remove part of this major problem, but such measures have proved inadequate in the past.

Does the Commission not believe that it should demand, as a matter of urgency, that the local authorities concerned find immediate, all-embracing solutions which meet European Union stipulations regarding the right of citizens to a healthy environment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

In its Communication setting out the guidelines for Structural Fund programmes in the period 2000-2006(1), the Commission stresses the importance of water management, including the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water. Special attention is paid to the location of discharge points and the impact of discharges on the environment.

The Commission is currently in the final stages of its negotiations with the Spanish authorities on the new Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Spain. It will carefully examine the authorities' proposals for all Spanish regions, including Murcia, in the light of the priorities indicated in these guidelines.

From the information supplied so far, it has not been possible to establish whether Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged to the aquatic environment of the Community(2) and the relevant Directives(3) apply in this case. In principle, discharges of List I substances have to be authorised and relevant List II substances have to be identified by the national authorities. For relevant List II substances, the Member States are required to draw up pollution reduction programmes, including the setting of quality objectives for rivers.

(1) OJ C 267, 22.9.1999.

(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.

(3) Directive 82/176/EEC, OJ L 81, 27.3.1982.Directive 83/513/EEC, OJ L 291, 24.10.1983. Directive 84/156/EEC, OJ L 74, 17.3.1984. Directive 84/491/EEC, OJ L 274, 17.10.1984. Directive 86/280/EEC, OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2335/00

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(4 July 2000)

Subject: Suspected violation of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community: electricity exports of the Temelin nuclear plant operator, CEZ

There are good grounds to suspect a case of price dumping and of cross-subsidisation by Czech consumers.

For years electricity production in the Czech Republic has been declining according to Czech consumer statistics it has been falling at a steady rate (2.6 % in 1999). Electricity exports by the operator of the Temelin nuclear plant, CEZ, have on the other hand increased enormously, and in the first quarter of 2000 reached a record level of 3 100 GWh. According to the CEZ authorities, electricity exports are expected to rise to 12 000 GWh this year.

A comparison of the average earnings from exports to Germany of 367 KC/MWh and the average production price of CEZ of 864 KC/MWh shows that electricity is being exported at a price far below the production costs (earnings amounted to a mere 41,8 % of production costs).

1. Has the Commission already launched an investigation into this matter?

2. Has there been any violation of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96(1) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community?

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

No anti-dumping proceeding has been initiated concerning imports of electricity from the Czech Republic.

The Commission may propose the initiation of anti-dumping proceedings only when sufficient evidence of injurious dumping exists, as laid down in Article 5 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995(1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2331/96 of 2 December 1996(2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998(3)).

Normally, such evidence is presented by the Community industry in the form of a complaint. If a complaint is indeed lodged with the Commission, it will carefully analyse it. The Commission is at the industry's disposal should Community producers wish to receive information on any substantive or procedural issues concerning the lodging of complaints.

Within 45 days after the lodging of a complaint, the Commission may initiate an anti-dumping proceeding in order to investigate the allegations made by the Community industry. There also are fixed deadlines for the duration of investigations. If warranted, measures may be imposed provisionally up to 9 months after initiation and definitively no later than 15 months after initiation.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.

(2) OJ L 317, 6.12.1996.

(3) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: Irregularities in the placing of land registry studies

On 17 May 1999 a competition was held for 12 land registry studies, with a five billion drachma budget, under the Second Principal Programme for a land registry of Greece now in preparation. The Commission has recently asked the ministry concerned, the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, for explanations regarding the confusing criteria applying to selection and the awarding of contracts under the tendering procedure.

1. What precisely was the legal obstacle in the assessment procedure by the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works?

2. What explanations did that Ministry give the Commission?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take if it does not accept the explanations given by the Ministry?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it has received complaints concerning the contract in question. Following a preliminary examination of the matter, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter about some aspects of the procedure that seemed to raise problems regarding conformity with existing Community rules. The Commission has just received a written reply from the Greek authorities and is making a detailed assessment of it.

In view of the current stage in this assessment process, the Commission cannot at the moment answer the honourable Member's questions with any precision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3342/00

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Subject: Measures against coca growers in Bolivia

The situation in Bolivia between the government and small farmers who grow coca is very tense. Officially, only 2 000 hectares of coca remain to be eradicated in Bolivia, as opposed to the 35 000 previously under cultivation. For social reasons the producers' associations are calling on the government to proceed rapidly with the substitution programmes before destroying the remaining 2 000 hectares. The Catholic Church, the Defender of the People (Ombudsman) and the Permanent Assembly on Human Rights are proposing a deadline of one month, which has been rejected by the government on the pretext of pressure from abroad.

Does the Commission align itself with the United States in demanding immediate eradication, or does it present a different point of view to the Bolivian authorities, supporting the comisión facilitadora, according to which the conflict should be resolved in a peaceful fashion, within a reasonable period of time and with the small farmers being offered alternatives?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The Commission is strongly committed to supporting alternative development programmes in Bolivia. It is financing the following operations: 19 million for alternative development in the main coca producing area of Chapare in the Cochabamba region under the Praedac project (Programa de Apoyo a la Estrategia de Desarrollo Alternativo en el Chapare), and 11 million for economic development in impoverished upland valleys to prevent migration to the coca-producing sectors.

The protocol on multi-annual indicative programming of Community financial and technical cooperation for the period 2000-2006 about to be signed with the Bolivian government stipulates that around 10 % of the available funding (between 10 and 12 million) will be earmarked to support alternative development projects.

The methodological approach recommended by the Commission takes the coca producers into account by defining by mutual agreement, the social and economic support measures to put in place in return for abandoning illegal crops. Clearly, however, the Commission's action in Bolivia must be in line with the guidelines laid down by the public authorities.

The Commission is not involved in the Bolivian authorities' eradication programmes, which are a matter of domestic policy, nor has it made the granting of aid subject to compliance with specific timetables for eradication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2810/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Council

(6 September 2000)

Subject: Representation at the United Nations

Will the Council of Ministers please inform me whether the European Union has any plans to seek status as a nation, or any other representative status, at the United Nations?

Will the Council of Ministers please inform me of the precise diplomatic status of any European Union representatives at the United Nations?

Reply

(30 November 2000)

1. Regarding the status of the European Union at the United Nations, the United Nations Charter provides for member status for States only. Thus the fifteen Member States of the European Union are full members of the United Nations. The European Union as such has no legal status within the United Nations. The European Community, for its part, has observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. It thus has a permanent invitation from the organisation to take part as an observer in the sessions and proceedings of the General Assembly and has a permanent office at the Organisation's Headquarters. It is represented there by the Presidency and the Commission.

2. The Union is playing an increasing political role in the United Nations. Article 19 of the TEU stipulates that Member States are to coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences and to uphold common positions in such fora. In line with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, the Presidency and, within the limits of its powers, the Commission, coordinate Member States' positions. The Presidency presents the European Union's positions in the various UN bodies and introduces an increasing number of initiatives on the Union's behalf. The European Union is not proposing to seek membership status at the United Nations; indeed, the United Nations Charter rules this out.

3. Regarding the status of European Union representatives at the United Nations, Member States of the European Union including of course the State holding the Presidency like all members of the United Nations, are represented at the United Nations by their permanent representatives. The European Commission has a delegation in New York and the General Secretariat of the Council set up a Liaison Office there in 1994. For practical and legal reasons in the United States, the delegation and the office while representing separate entities housed in separate premises are currently accredited jointly with the Organisation and the host country as the European Community.

4. Under the third paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by this Treaty. Thus, following the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Community informed the United Nations Secretariat that it now forms part of the European Union established by the Treaty on European Union.