ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0812/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Black market in domestic animals in the EU

The black market in domestic animals in and between Community states is unregulated and does not provide any health guarantees for animals or buyers. In the autonomous community of Valencia, the association of domestic animal breeders and traders (Grecoacom) reported recently that 70 % of sales of domestic animals are carried out illegally in the face of inaction by the Generalitat, the competent Valencian authority.

The majority of the animals sold on the black market are subject neither to health controls nor to the compulsory delousing procedures, and are reared in premises that are unsuited to their physical needs.

Clearly, there is a gap in legislation in this area at European Union level. While existing Community legislation regulates the transport of domestic animals between countries, their use in cosmetic testing and the trade in exotic animals, there are no legal provisions that could be used to eliminate the black market in the domestic animals sector, such as exists in Valencia.

Does the Commission intend to draw up a directive on the conditions of sale and health controls for domestic animals in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Intra-Community trade in domestic animals falls within the scope of different veterinary legislation as defined in Annex A to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1).

This Community legislation provides for veterinary controls for these animals when submitted to intra-Community trade and sales.

Day to day enforcement of the veterinary legislation is the responsibility of the Member States. Black markets are by definition illegal under national provisions. Consequently, the Commission has no intention to undertake additional legislative initiatives in this domain.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE), Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR), Roy Perry (PPE-DE) and William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Council. Respect of the Vienna Convention in Saudi Arabia.



Official Journal 340 E , 04/12/2001 P. 0208 - 0208



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE), Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR), Roy Perry (PPE-DE) and William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Council (27 April 2001) Subject: Respect of the Vienna Convention in Saudi Arabia Does the Council consider that Saudi Arabia is fulfilling its obligations under the Vienna Convention, regarding consular access to remand prisoners? Reply (20 July 2001) The Council is not aware of any problems in Saudi Arabia concerning access by consular authorities of Member States of the European Union to remand prisoners who are citizens of the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: European Union statute for Member States' capitals

The representative nature of the capitals of the Member States in connection with the institutional and administrative services which they have to render vis-à-vis the EU institutions by virtue of their status of state capital is a matter of some importance. Thus, there is a certain imbalance between the obligations of state capitals and those of other cities in the Union. To date, the former have not received any compensation which would enable them better to fulfil their role with greater institutional and financial support.

Does the Council consider that the European Union should adopt a Statute for State Capitals in the European Union so as to emphasise their nature as state capitals? If so, does not the Council consider that such a Statute should also make it possible for economic compensation to be paid and provide for an appropriate institutional rank for these cities which bear the burden of being the official capital of the state they represent?

Reply

(13 July 2001)

The Council has never been called upon to discuss this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Human rights in Malaysia

Is the Council aware of the arrest on 10 April of Mr Tian Chang Chua, Mr Hishamudin Rais, Mr Sarri Sungip and Mr Abdul Malekhusin by the Malaysian police, for the most part under the Internal Security Act?

Is the Council aware that these (and possibly other) arrests have taken place just ahead of the presentation of a memorandum by human rights groups to the National Human Rights Commission set up two years ago by the Malaysian Government?

What is the Council's assessment of these events, and what measures does the Council intend to take?

Reply

(27 September 2001)

The Council is indeed aware of these arrests and has conveyed the Union's concerns regarding the wave of recent arrests to the Malaysian Foreign Minister.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/01

by António Campos (PSE) and Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Wine fraud in Portugal

On 29 March 2001 the Portuguese press reported that 25 million litres of wine had been confiscated by the Portuguese authorities on grounds of serious presumption of fraud.

Did the Portuguese authorities inform the EU institutions of this? Has the Commission monitored this procedure? Could it provide an estimate of the volume of suspected adulterated wine held by the company in question? Can it guarantee that this company will not be granted any Community subsidy so long as such strong suspicions remain or in the event that they are confirmed?

Does the Commission not consider that this case has further highlighted the urgent need for immediate administrative and legislative action to be taken to combat fraud and adulteration of foodstuffs, such as milk, wine, oil and meat, given that such activities have taken on enormous proportions and had an extremely harmful effect on consumers, farmers, the Community budget and the reputation of Community institutions worldwide?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: VAT increase in the tourism industry

It is being reported in financial circles that certain Scandinavian Member States are putting pressure on the Commission to induce Spain to raise the rate of VAT it levies on the tourism industry to 16 %, the aim being to harmonise taxation and thus avoid tax competition.

Will the Council say whether such pressure is indeed being exerted?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0692/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: Operation of projects funded by 2nd CSF

The following projects were carried out under the 2nd Community Support framework in the regions of:

(a) Oinofyta:

1. biological treatment of urban waste,

2. biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region;

(b) Skhimatarion:

1. biological treatment of urban waste,

2. biological treatment of waste from industrial plants in the region.

According to my information, these installations, particularly those involving the treatment of industrial waste, do not operate owing to the cost involved unless an inspection is imminent.

Will the Commission therefore say how much has been spent on all the above projects? Can it confirm that the above installations operate as they should?

Is it possible for the Commission to carry out spot checks?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2001)

According to information provided by the Greek authorities, there is only one sewage-treatment plant processing urban waste water from the villages of Inofita and Skhimatari. Plants also exist for treating industrial effluents in this region but they were built with private capital and are operated under the responsibility of the firms to which they belong.

The construction of the sewage-treatment plant was originally funded partly by a contribution of GRD 182 million from the Envireg Community Initiative and partly by GRD 85 million from the EAPTA sub-programme of the Regional Operational Programme (OP) for Central Greece for 1994-1999. For a time construction was abandoned. Then, following representations by the Commission, the Greek authorities completed the plant with the help of an additional contribution of GRD 641 million under the Environment OP for 1994-1999.

The plant is not linked to a network of sewers but acts as an unloading point for tankers emptying septic tanks. Its average capacity is approximately 1 500 cubic metres a day, or around 100 tankers. It also has a storage basin for the collection and treatment (neutralisation and drying) of non-toxic industrial sludge from treatment plants at factories nearby.

Ensuring that municipal waste-water treatment plants function properly is the responsibility of the national authorities, who must also submit periodical reports on the subject to the Commission. The Commission does not have the power to conduct checks of the sort proposed by the Honourable Member.

Interruptions in the operation of such plants would constitute breaches of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1).

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1505/01

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Quebec agreement and EU Mercosur relations

Several days ago an agreement was signed in Quebec with a view to the creation of a free trade area covering all of the countries of America.

Will the Commission say what the implications of this agreement will be for political and trade relations between the European Union and Mercosur?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

The Quebec Summit did not lead to speeding up the integration process of the Americas, as had been expected beforehand. Rather it limited itself to confirming the scenario established at the Santiago de Chile Summit (free trade by 1 January 2006). At the Summit the challenges of this process became clear obtaining fast track authority; the opening of the American agricultural market; harmonisation of the differing interests of 34 countries; environmental and labour questions, etc.

The Community is the main investor, main commercial partner and the most important donor for the Southern common market (Mercosur) countries. The negotiations between the Community and Mercosur go far beyond mere trade issues. Negotiations are proceeding at their own speed without any interference from the American integration process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1373/01

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Store closures and mass redundancies at Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer has announced that it is closing down several of its stores in various European countries, including Spain (four in Madrid, two in Barcelona, and one each in Seville, Valencia, and Bilbao), and consequently making huge numbers of workers redundant.

The decision was announced without warning, the Marks and Spencer management having acted without first approaching the staff trade unions.

The company employees in the countries and stores concerned, in particular, and the public in general have reacted with amazement and indignation to a measure inimical to employment that violates the basic principle of consultation between management and labour and manifestly lies beyond the pale of the European social model.

In France, the courts have successfully intervened to prevent Marks and Spencer from implementing its decisions without any form of supervision.

The Marks and Spencer decision is absolutely reprehensible and, moreover, as the Secretary-General of ETUC, Emilio Gabaglio, has pointed out, highlights the need to build a genuinely social Europe. To that end, the EU must, as a matter of urgency, lay down effective rules on worker information and consultation to prevent large employers adopting decisions inspired by untrammelled capitalism such as the one described here.

What steps will the Commission take to defend the European social model and prevent Marks and Spencer from achieving its antisocial aims, thus ensuring that other companies of comparable size will not unhesitatingly take decisions along similar lines in the future? What kind of pressure will it exert on the Council to make it act without further delay to adopt the directive on the right of workers to be informed?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

The European Commission attaches the greatest importance to the social consequences of corporate restructuring. This was the central preoccupation of the Commission in the preparation of its proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community(1) on which political agreement on a common position was reached by the Council of Ministers on 11 June 2001.

This initiative is a key plank of the Community's response to the social problems resulting from the restructuring of enterprises.

Other measures are planned in this area, however, including the development of the concept and practice of the social responsibility of enterprises; more specific targeting of the active labour market measures, especially those financed by the European Social Fund, on the sectors and regions that bear the brunt of major restructuring operations; seeking to improve the dovetailing of competition policy and social policy and the forthcoming review of the Directive on European works councils.

(1) COM(98) 612 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Pilot study by Eurostat

A press release issued by Eurostat refers to a pilot study it carried out on the economic impact of firms under foreign control, which did not include Portugal.

Can the Commission say:

1. Why Portugal was not included in the study?

2. Whether another study is envisaged to include the Community countries which were not covered by the pilot study already carried out?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

The press release concerns the second phase of the pilot study on the economic impact of firms under foreign control (FATS - Foreign Affiliates Trade Statistics). Participation in such pilot studies is on a voluntary basis. Due to other priorities, the National Statistics Institute (INE) (Portugal) had decided not to participate in the first and the second phase of the pilot study. However, INE (Portugal) will participate in the third phase of the pilot study together with Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Data on reference year 1999 are expected to be delivered to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) by the end of 2001. As a result, Portugal will be covered in the statistics on FATS to be released in 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: BSE risks

On 7 February 2001 the European Commission submitted three proposals for decisions designed to combat the risks arising from exposure to BSE to the Standing Veterinary Committee.

The proposals provide for exemptions conditional on the obligation to remove the spinal cord from cattle over the age of 12 months (the spinal cord can be removed at the place of sale to the consumer) in respect of five countries: Austria, Finland, Sweden, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

There are no limits on the export of beef from Austria, Finland and Sweden into the other Member States. The same is not true of beef from the United Kingdom and Portugal. The provision could therefore be in breach of the rules on competition which govern the internal market.

It would perhaps be advisable to grant derogations on the basis of firms rather than countries. Such derogations should only be granted to firms subject to strict controls covering the entire production chain. This would ensure effective consumer protection and provide better safeguards with regard to the danger of the distortion the market to the detriment of the countries on which trade restrictions have been imposed.

Can the Commission say what provisions it intends to adopt in this area?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

The Scientific Steering Committee, in its opinion of 12 January 2001 on the safety with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of certain bovine tissues and certain animal-derived products, indicated its view that the vertebral column of bovines over 12 months should be regarded as specified risk material (SRM). It also indicated that in assessing the risk to human health posed by the bovine vertebral column, account should be taken of the likelihood of the animal being infected, and made particular reference to the existence of an effective feed ban.

Following this opinion and the conclusion of the Agriculture Council of 29 January 2001, the Commission brought forward a proposal to the Standing Veterinary Committee of 7 February 2001(1) adding the vertebral column to the list of SRMs, but giving certain derogations to United Kingdom, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden. The derogations for Austria, Finland and Sweden are based principally on their low Geographical BSE Risk; those for the United Kingdom and Portugal are based on the demonstration of an effective feed ban.

Legislation on BSE is agreed at Community level and enforced by Member State authorities. In the case of the feed ban that forms the basis of the Portuguese and United Kingdom derogations, it would be difficult to envisage how such a measure could be enforced and assessed at anything less than a national level.

(1) OJ L 84, 23.3.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1383/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Development aid in the form of State aid

In some cases, an EU Member State provides aid to a developing country in the form of a grant towards an investment order which the developing country wishes to place.

If a Member State awards a grant as a contribution to an investment order to a business established in that Member State which then carries out the order for the developing country, should this be regarded as State aid?

If so, is this a form of State aid which is compatible with the Treaty?

Do European rules on tendering apply to such awards?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The question raised relates to a category which is generally referred to as tied aid. It would appear that this category in fact contains a very large range of types of practices, which are operated by the different Member States. Although it cannot be excluded that some of these practices may in fact constitute State aid, it is however not possible, without an indication of the specific facts of a case, to establish which of these practices could constitute State aid within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty. Equally, it is not possible to establish whether, without prejudice to the qualification of these practices as State aid, they could be declared compatible with the common market.

Attention is also drawn to the fact that questions of tied aid to which reference is made may equally raise aspects of internal market, and more specifically of public procurement. On this basis the Commission is currently examining a number of complaints which have been lodged in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1116/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Enhanced cooperation on the Second Pillar

At the Nice summit a number of decisions were adopted on enhanced cooperation. How does the Commission interpret the substance of these decisions as regards the Second Pillar? Which activities of the Security and Defence Policy, currently in preparation in the EU, have not been included in the concept of enhanced cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

In accordance with the new Treaty of Nice, enhanced cooperation as regards the Second Pillar must respect:

- the principles, objectives, general guidelines and consistency of the common foreign and security policy and the decisions taken within the framework of that policy;

- the powers of the Community;

- consistency between all the Union's policies and its external activities.

Where Member States intend to establish enhanced cooperation in respect of the Second Pillar, the Commission, which shares responsibility with the Council for ensuring the consistency of all the Union's external activities in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies, must give a prior opinion on the request and forward it to the Council for decision.

Pursuant to the new Treaty of Nice, enhanced cooperation may not relate to matters having military or defence implications. None the less, closer cooperation between one or more Member States at bilateral level may be developed in the framework of the Western European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) provided that this cooperation does not contravene or hinder the provisions of Title V of the EU Treaty.