ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1495/98

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) , Jan Mulder (ELDR) , Jan Sonneveld (PPE) and Robert Sturdy (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Availability of equine medicines

1. The Commission is surely aware that equine practitioners are confronted with an increasingly limited number of veterinary medicinal products authorised for use in horses and that therefore the quality of treatment is impaired and animal welfare is compromised.

As a result, the Commission is also surely aware that, when no product is authorized in their own Member States, equine practitioners have, if they still want to treat the horses under their care, no other alternative but to use products imported from third Member States or to use products authorized in their own Member States but not for horses. Which in both cases is illegal.

What is the Commission prepared to do to restore the therapeutic arsenal of equine practitioners?

2. Does the Commission share our opinion that given the limited number of recreational horses which are slaughtered each year in the Community, such horses should not be regarded as food-producing animals and that, should they nonetheless be slaughtered and enter the food-chain, public health could be protected by means of a set, conservative pre-slaughter waiting period, (e.g. 3 months)? Such a period would give enough confidence that any residues of products used throughout the life of the animal would have decreased below levels of any concern to the consumer.

Under such conditions, is the Commission prepared to make a distinction between recreational horses and those bred for meat production and to accept that veterinary medical products could be used in recreational horses when no maximum residue limits have been established for horses?

3. Despite the existing measures to increase the number of veterinary medicinal products available for minor species or minor uses, veterinary practitioners are confronted with a limited number of products authorized for such uses or such species. Is the Commission prepared to investigate what further measures could be taken to increase the number of such products and to develop a policy modelled on the measures taken for Orphan Drugs necessary for the treatment of rare human diseases?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/98

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Trans-European high-speed network

Portugal's location on the periphery of the European Union is in itself sufficient justification for heavy investment in the rail network so as to mitigate this situation. Nevertheless, the investment currently being made or scheduled in other countries - in particular Spain, as part of the trans-European high-speed network - will exacerbate this peripheral situation unless rapid and well-structured progress is made towards extending that network to Portugal.

Given that there appears to be no plan which might indicate that such extension of the network is intended, can the Commission say to what extent it is envisaged that Portugal will be integrated into the high-speed trans-European network? By what date? How will it be linked to the work being done in other countries? Why has there been such a delay in taking this situation into account? Has the Portuguese Government submitted any applications in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Portugal is included in the high-speed rail network in the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1). Two lines are shown, one North-South connecting Lisbon and Porto, the other linking the North-South route with the Spanish system via Madrid.

The inclusion of these lines in the high-speed network indicates that they will be built for a maximum speed of at least 250 kilometres per hour. However, the Commission does not have any other technical details concerning their construction or design. It is understood that the Spanish authorities are planning to open their section of the new route from Madrid to France around 2004.

For the Lisbon to Porto route the Community is providing support notably for the feasibility studies that should be completed by the year 2000.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/98

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: BSE and the adverse consequences for exports of animals and animal products from the countries affected

The occurrence of BSE in some EU Member States has marked adverse consequences with regard to export opportunities for animals and animal products from the countries affected. The Netherlands is an example of this situation, where the two cases of BSE in 1997 are still preventing the traditional exports to certain countries from being resumed.

1. Can the Commission indicate what policy it is following to help the countries concerned to resume their traditional exports and possibly to develop new export opportunities?

2. Can it indicate its policy in international bodies with regard to establishing provisions which take a clear risk analysis into account if trade restrictions are to be applied?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

The Commission is aware that many third countries are currently imposing unjustified import restrictions on animals and products from Member States, claiming the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) as a reason. The Commission is making every effort, both in bilateral discussions with the countries concerned and in relevant international organisations, to ensure that Community exports are not subject to such restrictions.

In particular, the Community position was put forward vigorously in the meeting of the International office for epizootics (OIE) in Paris in May 1998. As far as BSE is concerned, the OIE is the reference organisation for the adoption of standards, guidelines and recommendations, recognised by the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS agreement), which affect international trade in animals and animal products. The SPS agreement requires health measures affecting international trade to be based on scientific principles. An important role is played by the assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, as outlined in article 5 of the SPS agreement.

The Commission will continue to press for the respect of the SPS agreement by countries importing animals and animal products from the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Crucifixion of a dove at Whitsun ceremony in Orvieto

It is a popular tradition in Orvieto that on Whit Sunday a dove, symbol of the Holy Spirit, is crucified on a wheel of fireworks and made to run along a wire from the church of Saint Francis (patron saint of animals) to the doors of the cathedral. With the cries of the crows and the explosions of the fireworks and fire-crackers attached to the wheel, it is not unusual for the dove to be dead or dying by the time it arrives. The condition in which the bird reaches the doors of the cathedral is taken as a good or bad omen for the future of the city.

This barbaric ceremony has the blessing of the city's bishop and comes under the patronage of the Region of Umbria and the European Union, according to the brochure publicizing the ceremony.

Despite repeated protests by various animal welfare organizations in the country (Friends of the Earth, LAV, ENPA, WWF), this year again a dove will be sacrificed on the altar of superstition.

Does the Commission feel that ceremonies of this kind are consistent with the need to protect animal welfare, as recognized moreover during the IGC, which led to the Treaty of Amsterdam? What led the EU to lend its name to this event? Does it not consider that this is an improper use of the EU flag symbol and how will it seek to prevent this?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

As it has stated on several occasions, the Commission deplores all forms of cruelty to animals and has, in its proposals concerning the welfare of animals, consistently sought to provide for the highest possible standards of welfare.

The Community has animal welfare legislation concerning farm animals (farm practices, transport and slaughter) and laboratory animals. This legislation has been up-dated from time to time, taking into account new developments and the latest scientific knowledge.

A protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam requires the Commission and the Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in the areas of agriculture, transport, internal market and research. However, the protocol stresses that religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage should continue to be respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/98

by Thomas Mann (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Discriminatory tax legislation in the EU

Under to Section 10(1), subpara. 1. of the German Income Tax Act (EStG), maintenance payments to an ex-wife are recognized as special expenditure (Sonderausgabe) when she lives in Germany. However, if the ex-wife of a non-German (e.g. British) EU national lives in the EU outside Germany (e.g. in Britain), the maintenance payments are regarded under S. 33a(1) of the Income Tax Act merely as extraordinary changes (außergewöhnliche Belastung), which makes a significant difference to the amount deductible for tax purposes.

A recent decree of 1 September 1997 on S. 33a(1) of the EStG states that: "Deductibility is conditional on the taxpayer being able provide evidence that the person resident abroad is in need of maintenance". If the person's ex-wife lives in Germany, no such evidence is required. The only evidence required here is that tax is being paid on the maintenance payments by their recipient.

Does this constitute a discrimination against other EU nationals in terms of tax legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1998)

The Honourable Member appears to refer to legislation and administrative instructions which no longer apply to Community residents.

The German tax rules have been changed by the Tax Act 1996 in such a way that under Article 1a § 1 No1 of the Income Tax Act (EStG) alimony payments to ex-spouses living in another Member State are now also tax deductible as special expenses in accordance with Article 10 § 1 No1 (EStG). Such deduction is subject to the production of a certificate of the competent tax authority from which it can be seen that the alimony payments are declared for tax purposes. However, a proof of the recipients's need to be furnished within the limits of Article 33a EStG is not required in cases which fall within the scope of Article 1a EStG. Thus alimony payments to an ex-spouse living in another Member State are put on a par with alimony payments to an ex-spouse living in Germany from a tax point of view.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2577/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Car prices

What is the Commission doing to reduce the discrepancy in car prices in the Member States given that a recent survey has shown that cars in the UK can be anything from 7 to 40 per cent more expensive than in other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Since 1993, the Commission has monitored car price differences in the Community in its bi-annual report on car prices(1). This publication is based on the recommended retail prices, which the manufacturers submit as of 1 May and 1 November respectively, to the Commission for their best selling models across the Community.

As regards the United Kingdom, the Commission has found that the high price discrepancies registered in the recent reports have been partly due to the strength of the Pound Sterling, rather than to changes in recommended list prices. Furthermore, pricing policies pursued by the manufacturers in the individual Member states take into account taxes to be paid with the car purchase. As a result, list prices before taxes tend to be lower in Member States with high taxes than in those with no particular tax on car purchase, eg the United Kingdom. Manufacturers also determine their list prices under economic considerations, such as demand patterns and pursued market strategies. Finally, a certain price supplement may arise from the equipment with right-hand drive of vehicles destined for the British market.

The Commission does not intervene in manufacturers' pricing policies, except in cases of infringement of Community competition rules, nor is it its aim to have equal car prices across the common market. However, a growing price transparency, as promoted inter alia by the Commission's regular car price reports, is increasingly inducing customers to acquire their vehicles in those Member States where prices and other sales conditions are most favourable. This freedom, as assured by the according provisions of the group exemption Regulation on motor vehicle distribution (Commission Regulation (EC) 1475/95 of 28 June 1995(2)), is, in fact, an important market-related factor contributing to a better harmonization of prices throughout the Community. For the members of the euro zone, the introduction of the single currency, as provided for in the Treaty on European Union, would avoid currency movements, which have been in the past one of the grounds for price discrepancies.

(1) IP/98/652 of 10.7.1998,and IP/98/154 of 13.2.1998 and IP/97/640 of 11.7.1997.

(2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Infringement procedures in the social and employment spheres

How many infringement procedures has the Commission brought since 1996 for the failure to comply with transposed Community directives relating to social and employment affairs?

Which directives and Member States have been involved?

What mechanisms have been employed to ascertain the non-implementation of Community legislation?

What sanctions have been imposed?

In which cases have infringement procedures led the Member States concerned to rectify their failure to comply?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th report on the monitoring of the application of Community law,(1) which contains all the information requested.

(1) COM(98) 317 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Long delays affecting the payment of pension entitlements

According to press reports, long delays are occurring in the payment of pension entitlements by certain funds in Greece, one example being a delay of six years in the payment of pension entitlements by the Metallurgical Industries Fund from the date of application. However, Article 24 of the Community Charter of Fundamental Rights of Workers categorically states that every worker in the European Union in retirement must be able to enjoy resources affording him or her a decent standard of living, while Article 5(3) states that wages and salaries may be withheld, seized or transferred only in accordance with national law.

What steps will the Commission take to remedy matters? What legal channels are open to members of pension schemes within the European Union to ensure that they can secure their entitlements immediately on retirement? Does the Commission find it acceptable that, in view of the high rate of inflation in Greece, no interest should be paid on the pension arrears accumulated over six years?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 1998)

The organisation, functioning, awarding and payment of pensions fall within the sphere of responsibility of the Member States.

The only binding Community provisions which may have a bearing on pension schemes are the Regulations on social security for migrant workers(1) and the Directives on equal treatment for men and women(2).

Given that these provisions have no bearing on the case referred to, the delay in pension payments should be looked into from the viewpoint of national law. Here the Commission is unable to intervene in what is an internal matter.

It should also be noted that the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers referred to by the Honourable Member does not lay down legally binding requirements.

(1) Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72. The updated versions of these Regulations were published in OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2) Directives 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979.), 86/378/EEC (OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.) and 96/97/EC (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2505/98 by Jean-Yves LE GALLOU to the Commission. Progress of actions brought against France for violations of Community environmental law



Official Journal C 031 , 05/02/1999 P. 0145



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/98 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (30 July 1998) Subject: Progress of actions brought against France for violations of Community environmental law In view of the importance of environmental considerations, would the Commission list and state the content of the actions initiated against France for failure to comply with Community legislation in the area of the environment?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1738/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Report on the COM in olive oil

On 19 March 1998 the Court of Auditors adopted a report on the proposals for reform of the COM in olive oil, containing a number of severe criticisms and observations relating to the "aid per tree" and "improvement" options, i.e. the two options examined in the Commission's preparatory documents.

Is the Commission aware of this report? Does it intend to amend its existing proposal for reform to take account of the Court of Auditors' comments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 1998)

The Court of Auditors has issued its report on the Commission's discussion paper on the olive oil sector(1).

The Commission proposal adopted on 18 March 1998(2) does not conflict with the Court of Auditors' opinion on this discussion paper. In fact, the Commission took account of all the opinions expressed by the various institutions and its proposal is neither the "improvement of the existing system" option nor the "aid per tree" option.

(1) COM(97) 57 final.

(2) OJ C 136, 1.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) and Claudio Azzolini (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Freedom of education

It is a well-known fact that Italy is the only European Union country that continues to practise serious discrimination with regard to freedom of education, which is detrimental to its citizens as they are consequently unable to choose freely between state and private education, mainly due to the expense of the latter and the lack of funds available either for the private education sector or for Italian or Union citizens who wish to have access to it.

In view of:

1. fundamental human rights, as upheld in the Treaty of Amsterdam in particular,

2. the principles on which the Community Treaties are based,

3. the European Parliament's resolution no. 1-1456/83(1) on freedom of education in the Community (paragraph I(1), (2), (3), (4),(7) and (9) and paragraph II (3)),

4. the freedom of movement and right of residence of individuals and of families, and the consequent right of access to educational services;

would the Commission state whether it regards this situation as infringing the rights of Community citizens, and what action could be taken to ensure that Italy puts a stop to this form of discrimination

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

The Community according to Article 126 of the EC Treaty does not have any basis for intervention in the definition of the organisation of educational systems and of curricula. Such decisions remain under Member States' competence.

(1) OJ C 104, 16.4.1984, p. 69.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1499/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion

When she appeared before Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, said that the information society should form an integral part of Community structural policy. On this subject the Committee on Regional Policy, by means of report A4-0399/97, has expressed its concern at the fact that only 2 % of expenditure under the Structural Funds goes to investment in the telecommunication sector. It puts forward the view that expenditure on the information society should be included in the "mainstreaming" of the Structural Funds and it calls on the Commission to secure close cooperation and coordination between the different programmes and activities in the area of information and communication technologies (ICTs).

Could the Commission say how it has incorporated these requests into its final proposals on the reform of the Structural Funds for the new 2000-2006 period (proposals which were adopted by the College of Commissioners on 18 March 1997), with particular reference to the configuration of Objectives 1 and 2, the establishment of the selection criteria and funding under those objectives?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1196/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Legislative proposal concerning forestry policy

The commercial and environmental importance of the European Union's forests as a source of both well-being and employment means that forestry strategy should reflect the multi-purpose nature of forests and the need for social, economic and environmental sustainability which takes into account the diversity of forests within the European Union.

In view of the above and also the call issued by Parliament in its report on forestry policy (Resolution A4-414/96)(1) in which it urged the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on a European forestry strategy, when does the Commission intend to draw up such a proposal?

(1) OJ C 55, 24.2.1997, p. 22.