ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia

1. Is the Commission aware that there is a secret agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom on the processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia at Dounreay in Scotland?

2. Is it true that the Dounreay plant is the subject of controversy and that only last year it was severely criticised by the international inspectorate for nuclear installations?

3. How can the Commission influence this decision to ensure safer processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

The Commission was informed by the British authorities in April 1998, before the transport of the nuclear material from Georgia to Scotland took place, that an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom was being concluded. It was also explained that this was a non-commercial deal, done on non-proliferation grounds. It is intended to use the nuclear material concerned for the production of medical isotopes.

The Commission in not able to trace information concerning criticism of the Dounreay plant by an international inspectorate for nuclear installations during last year. However, the Commission is aware of an investigation ordered recently by the British Nuclear installations inspectorate following a power cut to key plants at the Dounreay site in early May 1998.

The Commission will continue to ensure the application of Chapter III of the Euratom Treaty and of the relevant legislation for its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2585/98

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Subject: Human rights in Bahrain

Would the Commission inform me of what action it is considering in the light of the continued human rights abuses taking place in Bahrain, highlighted by several international human rights organisations?

Of particular pressing concern is the dissolution and possible court case against the Bar Association, the banning of several journalists and the continued imprisonment of opposition leaders, held for over two years without trial?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

The Commission does not have any bilateral contractual arrangement with Bahrain providing a framework for dialogue on human rights issues. However, in the joint council the Community and the Gulf co-operation council (GCC) concluded in 1989(1), questions concerning human rights and democracy are raised. The Commission encourages Bahrain and the other GCC countries to promote democracy and to become signatory parties to and fully apply international instruments in relation to human rights.

The reinforced political dialogue between the Community and the GCC practised since 1996 has provided a new forum for raising questions of human rights and democracy with the GCC authorities.

The negotiation of a free trade agreement can also be used as a vehicle for raising concerns on human rights and democracy.

(1) Council Decision of 20 February 1989; 89/147/EEC (OJ L 54, 25.2.1989)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1829/98

by Klaus Rehder (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 1998)

Subject: Cultivation of hemp

Hemp is playing an increasingly important role in the European Union, both as a renewable raw material and in environmental protection: it is being grown on set-aside land and is being used, for example, in attempts in Greece to "decontaminate" contaminated land by cultivating hemp. EU funds are currently used to support the cultivation of renewable raw materials.

1. Does the Commission intend to continue paying premiums for renewable raw materials?

2. Will it continue to pay premiums for set-aside areas?

3. Are there special premiums for the cultivation of hemp and, if so, how much are they?

4. How large are the areas currently under hemp cultivation in the EU and how much is it expected to expand?

5. What trials are being carried out in the EU, with scientific support, for the cultivation of hemp?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

1. The compensatory payment for land set aside under the arable crops scheme is granted to farmers growing eligible non-food products on that land.

2. As part of its Agenda 2000 reform package(1), the Commission proposed that the principle of compulsory set-aside be retained while allowing for voluntary set-aside. Land withdrawn from production in this way may be used under certain conditions for the production of raw materials not intended for direct human consumption.

3. Council Regulation (EEC) 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp(2) introduced per-hectare aid for hemp produced in the Community. The Council fixed the rate of aid for hemp production at ECU 716.63 per hectare in 1997/98. It decided to reduce this amount by 7.5 % in 1998/99. Aid for hemp is granted only if it is produced from certified seeds of varieties with an intoxicating substance (tetrahydrocannabinol-THC) content of not more than 0.3 %. This limit will be reduced to 0.2 % with effect from 2001/02.

4. The information communicated by the Member States for 1997/98 gives the following areas:

>TABLE>

Between 35 000 and 40 000 hectares will be under hemp cultivation in 1998/99.

5. A research project is currently being part-financed by the Community under the FAIR programme for the period 1994-1998, with the aim of developing improved cultivars with almost no THC content, culture management systems and harvesting and fibre extraction technologies, identifying optimum fibre quality for specific end uses and developing new innovative products.

(1) COM(97) final 2000.

(2) OJ L 146, 4.7.1970.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: European patent application for meningitis bacteria

Is the Commission aware of the applications filed with the European Patent Office by Human Genome Sciences who are seeking to be the first to "own" the whole genetic sequence of the bacteria which causes meningitis and does it have a view on scientists fears that, if granted, this could lead to royalties having to be paid on every treatment?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Commission is aware of the patent applications that have been filed by Human Genome Sciences Inc. It would note that they have not yet been examined by the European Patent Office and that it is not for the Commission to assess the supposed patentability of inventions which are still at the application stage. If necessary, it is up to the European Patent Office to decide whether the criteria for patentability have been met and to what extent the invention may be protected.

The Commission would, however, point out that methods of therapy and diagnosis are not patentable in Europe. This being the case, it does not consider that fees would have to be paid on every treatment using the patented invention.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1623/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)



Official Journal C 031 , 05/02/1999 P. 0061



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (27 May 1998) Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation) With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final - 97/0119 COD - 97/0120 CNS)(1), will the Commission ensure consistency between the requirements of an integrated approach by the Fifth framework programme and the concentration and interoperability of generic research activities, activities in support of major infrastructures and the key actions on which the new Community architecture is based, and identify, for this purpose, a series of qualitative and quantitative criteria for the guidance and monitoring of the activities of key actions, such as improvement in the employment sector, the potential take-up rate, their high profile and European dimension, the level of interaction between Community, European and national action, the presence of SMEs in the sector, the level of potential economic activity created in terms of new undertakings, new jobs and new skills? (1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1251/98

by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Food aid in the EU

Now that winter is coming to an end, can the Commission provide details of the food aid granted directly or indirectly to approved non-governmental organizations?

What steps will it take to reduce poverty and malnutrition, which are on the increase in the Member States of the European Union?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

The Commission confirms that, during last winter and in fact throughout the year, it continued to implement its programme of aid for deprived persons in the Community.

This measure was decided on in 1987 during a particularly hard winter(1). On the basis of the experience gained and the reactions both of the Member States and of the humanitarian organisations, it was decided to make it a permanent programme as from the following year. It consists in placing foodstuffs from Community intervention stocks free of charge at the disposal of the organisations working with deprived persons, if necessary after processing or exchange within the same category of products.

This measure is organised in the form of annual plans. It is coordinated by the Commission(2) and is implemented by the Member States which wish to take part in it. They also designate the beneficiary organisations. The annual plan applicable last winter was adopted by the Commission on 2 October 1997 and was adapted in the course of the year according to the state of stocks and the appropriations available(3). It applies until 30 September 1998 and receives funding of ECU 196 million.

Moreover, in addition to this food measure by which the Commission uses European farmers' and growers' produce, and particularly their surpluses, for the benefit of deprived persons in the Community, the fight against social exclusion and poverty are taken into account in a number of European programmes or measures and more particularly under the European Social Fund (ESF) and the associated Community initiatives. In the reform of the ESF, the promotion of social integration and of equal opportunities for all in access to the labour market constitutes one of the defined priority fields of action.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 352, 15.12.1987.

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 313, 30.10.1992.

(3) Commission Decision 98/203/EC of 3 March 1998 amending Decision 97/660/EC adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 1998 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community, OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Hunting of goosander

If in the near future the Bavarian Parliament adopts the proposal for a decision from its Environment Committee of 25 June 1998, it will soon be possible to hunt goosander again in Bavaria. According to ornithological reports there are, however, only 300 breeding pairs of this species in Bavaria. Mergus merganser appears on the Red List in Germany as a particularly endangered species.

1. Under the provisions of Annex II of the Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)(1) the EU leaves authorization to hunt goosander to the discretion of the Member States. Does the Commission consider the goosander population in Bavaria to be really large enough and the reasons for the authorization to hunt these rare birds sufficient to be able to justify this step by the Bavarian Land government?

2. Is the Commission aware of the population trends for goosander in Germany, and in Bavaria in particular? If so, what information is available and how is it assessed by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

1. According to Article 7 (3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, bird species listed in its Annex II/2, which include mergus merganser, can only be hunted in those Member States in respect of which they are indicated. As this species is not indicated for Germany its hunting there could only therefore be allowed as a derogation in accordance with the conditions of Article 9 of this Directive.

2. The Commission is aware of the conservation status of mergus merganser which is considered to be favourable at the European level. However, this is not the situation in each Member State where it occurs as a breeding species and according to the published scientific literature it has decreased in Germany. The German authorities should consider this fact in any measures they take which may affect mergus merganser.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1972/98

by Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission

(15 June 1998)

Subject: Italian bill on the marketing of virgin and extra-virgin olive oil

Italian bill No. 4698 (approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and Senate on 26 May 1998), containing measures for the marketing of extra-virgin olive oil, virgin olive oil and olive oil, implements the Community directives on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (Directives 89/395/EEC(1) and 89/396/EEC(2)).

The legislation is intended to protect consumers so that they are not misled as to the place of origin or provenance of a product.

For reasons which are unclear, the Commission has requested notification of the bill to the Member States, on the basis of provisions which may be regarded as "technical standards" within the meaning of Directive 83/189/EEC(3).

A "technical standard" is understood within the meaning of Directive 94/10/EEC(4) to govern production methods and processes.

The Commission has, perhaps mistakenly, requested the suspension of the measure, failing to take into account that it is intended solely to define standards to ensure that products are marketed correctly as regards their origin and place of production.

How can the Commission's communications to the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, which virtually amount to ultimatums, be justified in the light of the Common Agricultural Policy which is designed to protect consumers and promote and protect typical local products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

The bill to which the Honourable Member refers introduces specific labelling requirements for virgin and extra-virgin olive oil to be marketed in Italy that go beyond the requirements of the relevant Community Directives. Such requirements are classifiable as "technical specifications" as defined in Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and the Italian authorities in line with the Directive's requirements formerly notified the bill to the Commission on 4 May 1998.

Under Article 9(1) of the Directive the Italian authorities are required to delay adoption of the bill for a period of three months, expiring in this instance on 5 August, so that the Commission and the other Member States can formulate any objections they may have and the erection of barriers to inter-Community trade can be avoided.

Failure to comply with this procedural guarantee would mean, given the Court of Justice's judgment of 30 April 1996 in the Securitel Case (C-194/94; 1996 Reports, p. 2201), that the provisions adopted could not be invoked against third parties.

(1) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.

(4) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Commission personnel

Can the Commission please provide a breakdown by nationality of all officials at the level of Director or higher 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-1112/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: EU import ban on beef

1. Do the EU's arguments for the import ban on meat from hormone-treated cattle relate only to the evidence of residues of the hormones used which are detrimental to health? If additional arguments are put forward, can the Commission specify what they are?

2. Which qualified and respected scientists are working in what areas on the EU's arguments in this case?

3. The SPS measures relate almost exclusively to the avoidance of health risks. Does the Commission make any additional demands? If so, what are they?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

1. The ban on the use of certain oestrogenic, androgenic and gestagenic hormones in livestock farming within the Community, and the import ban on meat from bovine animals treated with these growth hormones, are based on the potential risk presented for the consumer by the residues of these hormones in the meat. When these measures were adopted Parliament considered that scientific information about these substances was far from complete and that considerable doubt therefore existed about the desirability of their use and their effect on human health. The Appellate Body, although recognising that the scientific evidence presented by the Community was relevant, nevertheless indicated that this scientific evidence was not sufficiently specific to the case at hand, i.e. not focused enough on the genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of the hormones in question when used specifically for growth promotion purposes, in particular the potential effects arising from the presence in meat of hormone residues.

2. Taking account of the conclusions of the Appellate Body, the Commission has started work on generating the scientific data required for a risk assessment linked more specifically to the residues from these six hormones and their metabolites in meat when used for animal growth promotion. In this context, the Commission has freed financial resources to request internationally recognised scientists to produce the missing data.

3. As the Honourable Member notes, the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures concern exclusively the human, animal or plant health risks, and the import ban on meat from animals treated with the hormones comes completely within the scope of these measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Promotion of plants and flowers

With reference to Regulation (EC) 832/97(1) on the promotion of floricultural products, it would seem that during the implementation of the first stage of the measure, the programmes submitted and carried out have suffered from the fact that only one body in the European Union possessed sufficient resources to cover the difference between the total costs of the promotional campaigns and the Community contribution.

1. Is this true?

If so

2. Should the Commission not consider seriously whether this instrument is efficient, fair and impartial?

3. Does it not believe that the EU's acceptance of the Dutch law imposing a parafiscal levy on flowers (Community and other) in transit through its territory will in all probability exacerbate the imbalance in future years between the capacity of the Dutch Flower Bureau to provide financial support in this sector and that enjoyed by the flower sector in other Member States?

4. Does it not consider that the omission of floriculture from Agenda 2000 is unjustified and will have adverse effects in future years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

In response to the Honourable Member's first point, the Commission's practical experience has been that many professional and interprofessional organisations have had the resources to co-finance the promotional measures selected. Co-financing of this type parallels existing practice in other sectors.

As regards the Dutch levy, it should be pointed out that the use of funds raised from obligatory charges on operators in the sector can facilitate the implementation of programmes. For this reason their use was permitted by Commission Regulation (EEC) 803/98 of 16 April 1998 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products(2).

Under Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 of 22 November 1996(3) Community aid is granted for promotional programmes lasting up to three years. The Commission must wait to assess the results obtained from the scheme before deciding what further action is required for the sector.

(1) OJ L 119, 8.5.1997, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998.

(3) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1836/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(12 June 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for tobacco growers

During the European Parliament's sitting in Strasbourg on 12 May 1998 Padraig Flynn, the Commissioner responsible for social affairs and employment, said that he had always been opposed to giving subsidies to tobacco growers. Furthermore, he added that he longed for the day when they could be discontinued. He explained that so far he had been unable to achieve full agreement but that some progress had been made in that direction.

He also fervently hoped that in the not-too-distant future the issue would be raised again and tobacco subsidies as an integral part of the Union's policy would be discontinued. In view of these categorical statements can the Commission say whether Mr Flynn has realized that if he achieved his desired purpose, it would considerably damage employment in the most disadvantaged regions of the Union, such as Extremadura?

Is he not worried about such serious consequences, as the Commissioner responsible for job creation?

Is he also aware that even if tobacco is no longer produced in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, this will by no means lead to a reduction in smoking in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its report to the Council on the common organisation of the market on raw tobacco(1), and to its proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) 2075/92 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(2).

As regards the employment situation in disadvantaged regions of the Community, in the current programming period for the European social fund (ESF) almost 50 % of resources have been allocated to objective 1 regions. The new structural fund regulations, in the framework of the European employment strategy, will allow Member States to focus ESF support on these regions.

As regards policy on smoking prevention, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its communication of December 1996(3).

(1) COM(96) 554 final.

(2) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(3) COM(96) 609 final.