ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1594/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Progress of sub-programme 3 of the programme to combat social exclusion in Greece

According to Ministry of Justice statistics, 40 % of prisoners in Greek jails are foreign nationals who have diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic backgrounds. This situation has developed in cramped conditions in the prisons which breed belligerence and violence between groups and individuals, putting the rights of prisoners at risk on a daily basis.

Measure 1 of sub-programme 3 of the programme to combat social exclusion in Greece, which concerns prisoners, ex-prisoners and young offenders, has a low funding take-up rate of 10 %. Will the Commission say what the main reasons are for the low take-up rate of funding for the programme and what measures it will take to advance the programme on schedule?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

The objectives of measure 3.1 "Prisoners, ex-prisoners, young delinquents", which has total funding of 38,2 MECU, of which the European social fund contribution is 28,6 MECU, are linked to the more general objectives of the operational programme "Combating exclusion from the labour market", 1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece. In the case of prisoners, the intervention aims, in particular, at creating the conditions for their integration or re-integration into the official labour market. Foreign prisoners could benefit from the operational programme provided that they are legal residents of the Member States.

According to recent data from the Greek ministry of Labour, the absorption rate of the 1994-1997 measure in relation to the 1994-1999 relevant budget is approximately 14 %. The low take-up is mainly associated with the overall operational programme implementation problems encountered in the 1994-1997 period - the innovative approach, lack of appropriate administrative and support structures, lack of implementing agencies and accreditation shortcomings. Moreover, changes in the prison status of the target group in question, such as transfers and early release, render more difficult the implementation of schemes.

Following the re-establishment of the accreditation system and the recent reprogramming aimed at simplifying the operational programme structure and procedures whilst maintaining the programme's objectives and approach, more effective action implementation is expected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1621/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Urgent aid to Borneo

In the light of the recent fires in Borneo, which are threatening flora, fauna, the environment and the livelihood of its people, will the Commission be making emergency aid available and taking supportive action in an attempt to prevent any recurrence?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 1998)

The mandate of the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) is to provide humanitarian assistance to populations affected by conflicts and natural disasters. In the light of this, the Commission has no competence to take initiatives in the realm of flora, fauna or environmental issues, even though it may assist in the protection of the livelihood of the populations affectd by the forest fires in Borneo.

The Commission sent a mission to the Indonesian province of East Kalimantan, one of the most affected forest fire regions. Following this, an assessment was made and confirmed by a later mission in the same area which concluded that there was enough food being brought in by other donors, though medical and drinking water needs were not being met and required further contributions.

In the light of this assessment, non-governmental organisation (NGO) partners went to the region on an exploratory mission as a result of which the Commission has put forward a financial allocation of 1 MECU for Indonesia within which East Kalimantan has been included as a beneficiary area.

On the other hand, taking into account the grave threats posed to the environment by land and forest fires in Indonesia and in other parts of the world, the Commission is actively participating in the international discussions aimed at setting up a strategic approach in coordination with interested donors to support both short-term actions to combat the recurrence of such uncontrolled fires and the organisation of appropriate structures for fire prevention and control in the medium and long term.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2186/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the directive on wild birds

What contacts and proposals for dialogue does the Commission intend to establish with hunting associations, nature conservation bodies and the Member States chiefly concerned with a view to seeking a more widely accepted compromise with regard to clarifying or modifying Council Directive 79/409/EEC on wild birds(1) in order to ensure both the conservation of migratory birds and the preservation of historic rights in relation to hunting, an activity which the Commission recognises as lawful?

It would be regrettable if the European Union proved incapable of adopting a balanced, negotiated approach to this subject, particularly as Europe does not always appear capable of guaranteeing citizens' fundamental rights in other essential areas (child labour, social protection, etc.).

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Council Directive(2) with the aim of finding a means of definitely settling the closing dates for the migratory-bird shooting season.

Since its proposal did not receive a qualified majority the Commission has maintained informal contacts with hunters and nature-conservancy organisations, and with the Member States concerned, in order to find solutions that could enable a qualified majority to be obtained within the Council on a proposal enabling migratory birds to be protected.

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) has been unanimously accepted by the Council and supported by Parliament. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission must ensure compliance with that Directive, more especially since there is a broad consensus on the need to abide by the principles underlying this legislation. That principle applies without exception to all of the laws involving Community powers that have been adopted by the Council. The Commission is of course still readily available for any useful contacts and is prepared to examine any proposal enabling the various legitimate differences to be reconciled.

It is here a matter of principle concerning the rule of law.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 100, 9.4.1994.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

Council Regulation (EEC) 2309/93(1) of 22 July 1993 established the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

How long do the Member States have to adapt their national legislation to the provisions of the regulation (Articles 16 et seq.)?

Which Member States have adapted their national legislation, and how?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

Council Regulation (EEC) 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products entered into force on 30 November 1993 as regards Title IV and on 1 January 1995 as regards Titles I, II, III and V.

The above mentioned Council Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Member States are neither required nor supposed to adopt national transposition measures. However, any national legislation which could be contrary to provisions of this Regulation has to be repealed.

(1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1964/98

by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(15 June 1998)

Subject: Commission proposal for new agricultural policy

At Question Time at the May part-session the Commission gave a written answer to a question by me about aid for maize silage as animal feed. The Commission says that as there are regions in Europe where maize cannot be cultivated (e.g. Sweden and Finland) they are allocated extra milk quotas.

Are Swedish (and Finnish) farmers fully compensated by increased milk quotas? Exactly how much by way of increased milk quotas are Swedish (and Finnish) farmers allocated, and has the Commission made any calculations which show whether they fully compensate for the maize silage aid not paid to either country?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

Both Swedish and Finnish farmers are amongst those who benefit most from the milk quota increase the Commission is proposing in the Agenda 2000(1) draft regulation for the milk sector. Including the 1 % increase for young farmers, which is proposed for all Member States, the Swedish quota is suggested to grow by 77 300 tons or 2,3 % and the Finnish quota by 200 000 tons or 8,4 %. The relatively high expansion of quota in both Member States is a result of their high share of mountain areas, which for Finland and Sweden is also a recognition of more difficult agronomic conditions.

Most of the proposed cut in the institutional milk price is compensated by the milk cow premium. A precise calculation as suggested by the Honourable Member would be difficult. However the Commission is of the opinion that the possibility to produce more milk will help maintain rural employment and income, and be of benefit to the Swedish and Finnish economies.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Residue testing on poultrymeat

Can the Commission confirm which Member States have implemented a surveillance programme of residues of veterinary medicines in the poultry sector in accordance with Directive 96/23/EC, how many checks on residues have been carried out on poultry originating outside the EU and the results of these controls? Will the Commission publish the results of on-the-spot controls carried out by their own inspectors?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 1998)

All Member States have included examinations of poultry meat in their monitoring programmes for residues submitted to the Commission for approval according to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC(1).

Data on checks on residues on poultry originating outside the Community are not yet available to the Commission as such controls were not obligatory before the entry into force of Directive 96/23/EC. Third countries which want to export poultry meat to the Community have to put into place a monitoring plan according to Directive 96/23/EC for the exported goods. Additional controls are also made at border inspection posts, but these controls are under the responsibility of Member States and are not harmonised at the European level.

The Commission has already started an evaluation of the implementation of Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists and repealing directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC1 and Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products, in Member States and third countries. The results of this evaluation once finalised will be published on the Directorate general for consumer protection website.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: The "York Code" and freedom of movement

Freedom of movement is not an abstract concept. It involves the real possibility of eliminating "borders" and gradually removing all obstacles to the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services. It is a very specific definition. Nevertheless, the York agreements provide that financial transfers between countries within the Union which were hitherto possible can no longer be carried out.

1. How does the Commission view this prohibition?

2. Does not the Commission regard as absurd a situation in which, despite, and indeed because of, a single currency, a system previously applicable between countries with different currencies is being changed for the worse by obstructing a pre-existing freedom?

3. Does not the Commission believe that this prohibition is a retrograde step and the exact opposite of the spirit of solidarity which ought to exist between the partners?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

The free movement of people, goods, services and capital constitute the fundamental freedoms established in the EC Treaty. The Commission has always acted to ensure that the four fundamental freedoms are honoured, and obstacles and barriers to free circulation are dismantled.

During the informal meeting of the ministers of Economy and Finance held at York on 20-22 March 1998 a number of subjects were on the agenda and discussed by the participants. However, the Commission is unaware of any agreements made at York providing that financial transfers between Member States can no longer be carried out.

Besides, the Commission has repeatedly underlined its commitment to ensure free movement of capital and its firm opposition to any measures which would limit this basic freedom of the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Article 169

How many registered complaints are there under Article 169 on:

(a) no decision to act has been taken,

(b) a reasoned opinion has been issued but the matter remains unresolved and

(c) are current before the Court?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law(1)

(1) .COM(98) 317 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/98

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Shipment of waste to certain non-OECD countries

With regard to the proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste (COM(94) 0678), there has been much concern expressed by exporters of second-hand clothes.

"Worn clothing and textiles" appear under Annex II (the Green List) of the Waste Shipments Regulation 259/93(1), although this covers these materials only when they are considered as waste. Can the Commission define when "worn clothing and textiles" constitute waste?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 1998)

The qualification of items as waste has to be made in the light of the definition of waste as laid down in Article 1 a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(2). On the basis of this provision waste is any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. As Annex I contains a catch all entry (Q16 "Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories") the qualification of a material as waste depends on whether it is discarded or intended or required to be discarded by the holder.

Clothes have to be considered as discarded when the holder puts them into a collection scheme for worn clothes. Re-usable clothes which are separated from the overall mass of discarded clothes no longer qualify as waste after having been sorted, washed and if necessary repaired. The product quality of the item can only be determined after the completion of these operations which ensure their re-usability.

It should be noted that these criteria for the distinction between waste and product are specific to the case of worn textiles. Accordingly, these criteria of distinction between worn clothes and second hand clothes do not necessarily apply to other wastes.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Internet gambling

Does the Commission have any plans to regulate gambling via the Internet? What are the scope and potential outcomes of these regulations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of Internet gambling and its regulation. He will be aware that in 1991 the Commission undertook a study on gambling in the internal market. At that time there was no call for regulation in this area given the limited cross-border flows of such services.

This situation is now obviously changing with the possibility of such services being offered on-line. In its current examination on the legal framework for electronic commerce, the Commission is therefore considering the issue of the regulation of such on-line services.

Since the Commission has not yet completed its analysis of the existing regulatory situation, it is not possible at this stage to indicate whether the Commission will make regulatory proposals in this area and what will be their scope and content.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Commission personnel

Can the Commission please provide a breakdown by nationality of all "A" grade officials working in the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1610/98

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Impact of GATT/WTO on animal protection

There is growing concern that the GATT Agreement is making it increasingly difficult for the EU to introduce enhanced standards of animal welfare protection, as import bans may not be imposed on products, even if their production has involved substantial animal suffering. This in turn discourages the introduction of tighter restrictions within the EU because of a fear of competition from cheaper imports produced using production methods which are more cruel.

Given the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposal that CAP policies should be redirected to take animal welfare into account, what measures will the Commission be taking to ensure a higher profile for this problem, with a view to preventing a future possible conflict with CAP reform, during the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Conference?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

Under World trade organisation (WTO) rules as currently interpreted there is a conflict between WTO agreements and Community animal welfare provisions if the Community's welfare-based production standards are made a condition for imports from third countries.

Such possible conflicts can effectively be avoided through the adoption of international welfare-based standards in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Furthermore, given the fact that animal welfare is becoming an increasingly relevant issue in terms of international trade, this issue may be raised in the WTO context in the future. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiation objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/98

by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Export premiums - transport of live animals

1. When will Commissioner Fischler propose to the Council of Ministers the abolition:

a) of the export premium on the transport of live animals

b) of the calf processing premium (for the slaughter of newborn calves in order to avoid beef surpluses),

as he has already promised to do in the media?

2. Does the Commission expect these proposals to be approved, and if so, when?

3. If not, which countries are known by the Commission to oppose these reforms and what are their reasons for rejecting them?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

1. The Community does not subsidise the transport of live cattle but it grants export refunds for exports of cattle and beef. There is no proposal to abolish the export refunds for cattle.

As expressed in the media, the Commission is of the opinion that in the long run it is not acceptable to solve the problem of over-production by slaughtering young calves a few days after birth. This is one of the reasons which lead the Commission to present in Agenda 2000(1) its proposals for the beef sector in which the calf processing premium is no longer foreseen(2). Furthermore, in December 1997, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) 2502/97 of 15 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes for beef and veal(3) stipulating that the eligibility to the calf processing premium shall be subject to compliance with the Community rules on the protection of animals during transport.

2 and 3. On 18 December 1997 the Council unanimously adopted Regulation (EC) 2634/97 of 18 December 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal(4) stipulating that in the case of exports of live animals, the payment of the export refund shall be subject to compliance with the provisions of Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport. The Parliament gave its opinion on this Regulation generally supportive of the Commission proposal. On 17 February 1998 the trade mechanisms management committee gave a favourable opinion to 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(5).

The Agriculture Council in October 1996 required Member States, for a period of two years beginning on 1 December 1996, to implement at least one of the two premium schemes, the calf processing premium or the early marketing premium. Thus, as from 1 December 1998, the application of the processing premium becomes optional to Member States, as it was until December 1996. In this respect, until now, no Member State has indicated to the Commission what will be their decision.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.

(2) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.

(3) OJ L 345, 16.12.1997.

(4) OJ L 356, 31.12.1997.

(5) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.