ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0666/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Allegations of ESF fraud in Spain

Following the discovery that the Centro Politécnico de Educación a Distancia y Editorial (CPD) company, in which the wife of his political appointee, the Director-General for Migration, had a 50 % holding, had made use of inside information to charge approximately ESP 2 billion (EUR 12 million) in respect of its involvement in programmes run by the National Employment Agency (INEM), the Spanish Minister for Labour and Social Affairs dismissed the Director-General and, deciding to accept political responsibility for the affair, resigned on 19 February.

Given that the INEM is responsible for administering a large proportion of the ESF funds allocated to Spain, would the Commission state whether the above matter has come to its attention; European Social Fund aid or other types of Community aid is, or may be, being put to improper use; this is an isolated case, or whether it is aware of similar cases; OLAF has opened any inquiries, and, if it has, whether it could forward the conclusions thereof or details of the stage that has been reached therein to either the author of this question or the relevant EP committee?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

As a result of press coverage, the Commission is already familiar with the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Given the nature of the operations concerned (training schemes) and the link to the largest European Social Fund promoter in Spain (the National Employment Agency INEM), the Commission has called upon the Spanish authorities to keep it informed of the results of their investigation and any involvement on the part of the ESF. The information which the Spanish authorities will supply should enable the Commission to gauge the extent of any problems.

Within the framework of its annual inspection activities, the Commission has arranged an inspection visit to the INEM, which was announced when the Commission submitted its plan to the national authorities in December 1999.

In accordance with Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 28 April 1999(1) establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), the Office exercises its investigation powers in full independence. On the basis of Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office(2), the Director of the Office reports on a regular basis, primarily to Parliament, on the results of the Office's investigations and subject to the conditions set out therein.

The Commission has not received any information from the Office about the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member.

(1) Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom. OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2193/00

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Revision of the Programme of specific options to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican) and the drawing up of permanent statute for the ultra-peripheral regions of the European Union

With regard to the Council decision establishing a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of the Canary Islands (Poseican), what is the current state of affairs as regards the reform of the programme and what measures are being taken in respect of the report adopted by the Commission concerning the application of Article 299 (2) of the EC Treaty with a view to establishing a permanent statute for the ultra-peripheral regions and the budgetary implications thereof?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0468/00 during question time at Parliament's May 2000 part-session(1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 2000).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens

With reference to my priority written question to the Commission (P-0555/00)(1), the Commission did not, in my view, answer the question.

The Danish Government has put forward a draft law to amend Danish legislation on holidays. The problem is that this law discriminates between workers with a collective agreement and those without an agreement.

My question was whether, in the Commission's view, it is consistent with the Treaties for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens i.e. employees covered by a collective agreement as opposed to employees without a collective agreement so that those who are covered by a collective agreement are able to carry over days' holiday to a new holiday year, while those not covered by an agreement are not offered that possibility?

Is it, in the Commission's view, reasonable for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens on the basis of whether they are covered by a collective agreement or not?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

As the Commission indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-0555/00(1), the issue raised by the Honourable Member is the responsibility of the Danish authorities provided that Danish legislation, if amended, guarantees that Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time(2) is respected.

From a general point of view, it may, however, be stated that legislation in Member States often differentiates between the rights and obligations of individuals on various grounds. However, provided that the differentiation is not made on grounds which violate Community law, the reasonableness of such provisions must be assessed at national level.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/00

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 March 2000)

Subject: Homeopathic medicines in stock farming

Under a new Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999(1) of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91(2) on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production), organically reared animals are, primarily, to be treated with homeopathic and herbal medicines, provided they are effective.

It is very constructive that homeopathic and herbal medicines are now accepted and are to be used but, in Sweden, veterinary surgeons have protested against the rule as they are not permitted to use homeopathic medicines as long as there is no scientific evidence that such preparations are effective. In contrast, anyone who is not a veterinary surgeon is allowed to treat sick animals with homeopathic medicine.

The consequence of this situation is that it is left to farmers first to make a diagnosis and then to try a homeopathic treatment. There is a great risk in this process that a correct diagnosis and professional treatment will come too late. There is also a greater risk of spreading disease.

What does the Council intend to do to ensure that animals in all countries receive professional and appropriate treatment and that veterinary surgeons are also allowed to use homeopathic and herbal medicines?

(1) OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1.

Reply

(18 May 2000)

Council regulation 1804/1999 stipulates that the treatment of sick or injured animals reared in organic farming has to privilege the use of veterinary medicinal products of plant origin and of homeopathic products, provided they are therapeutically effective and adapted to the illness the animal species concerned.

Every medicinal product of whatsoever origin must comply with specific rules before it can be marketed or administred in the European Community. According to the principles laid down in Article 4 of Directive 81/851/EEC, no veterinary medicinal product may be marketed in a Member State and no veterinary medicinal product may be administered to animals unless authorization has previously been issued by a competent authority.

Although Directive 92/74/EEC provides for a simplified registration procedure for homeopathic veterinary medicinal products Article 7 of this Directive explicitly excludes products which are intended for food producing animals from this simplified procedure. Both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic medicinal products for food producing animals must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Directive 81/851/EEC, including the provisions concerning proof of therapeutic effect.

The above-mentioned rules apply to all persons who place on the market and administer veterinary medicinal products to animals.

The Council shall keep this situation under review and, in particular, shall examine any new proposals which the Commission may choose to submit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Clause 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Bill

Under Clause 19 of the UK Financial Services and Markets Bill (available on the internet at http:/www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/032/2000032.htm), the UK is seeking to impose extra territorial jurisdiction over financial service providers operating outside the UK. This clause would allow the UK Government to regulate companies based in other Member States who are selling financial services on the UK market via the internet.

Does the Commission believe that this clause contravenes single market legislation? In the Commission's view, does this clause contravene the spirit of the EU's single market legislation and/or the single market principle? Is Clause 19 likely to contravene the e-commerce directive (assuming it is enacted in accordance with the Council's recent agreement on a common position)?

Does the approach of the UK Government undermine the home country/country of origin control principle of the single market?

If it is the view of the Commission that Clause 19 breaches any EU laws or principles, what action does it intend to take against the UK Government?

Has the Commission received any complaints from the public concerning Clause 19?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the draft financial services and markets bill (FSMB).

The Commission is concerned to ensure that Clause 19, once it comes into force, is consistent with internal market principles and in particular, with the provisions in the draft Directive on a legal framework for e-commerce(1). The Commission and the British authorities are in contact to this effect.

The Commission has not received any official complaints concerning clause 19, which is not yet in force.

(1) COM(98) 586 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Viagra

1. Why has viagra been authorised as a drug by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products although, in trials, out of 4000 people taking part, 22 cases of death occurred in the group to which the active substance was administered (compared with two deaths in the group to which a placebo was administered)?

2. In view of the dramatic increase in deaths linked to viagra, does the Commission consider that authorisation should be withdrawn, and, if not, what are its reasons?

3. What does the Commission intend to do in the face of the increasing number of deaths linked to viagra?

4. Could the Commission explain why, at the forthcoming meeting between the Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and representatives of the Member States, viagra will again not be on the agenda despite the large number of deaths?

5. Is the Commission aware that the product information given in the package leaflet is incomplete? What action does it intend to take about this?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

1. The Commission authorised Viagra on the basis of a favourable opinion from the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). The clinical trial reports indicating 22 deaths with Viagra as opposed to 2 deaths with the placebo fail to take account of the different number of patients in each group and the duration of the treatment. In fact, the rates are comparable, at around 0,5 deaths per 100 patients treated over the course of one year. Moreover, analysis suggests that none of these 22 deaths is attributable to treatment with Viagra.

2. To date there have been no data to suggest a dramatic increase in the number of deaths, even though the number of patients treated has risen from a few thousand to several million. It must be borne in mind that this is a medicinal product intended for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction, which affects more than 50 % of men over the age of 70. This means that, in many cases, death may be due to vascular problems.

3. The Commission ensures that holders of authorisation to place products on the market send the EMEA regular data on safety. For Viagra, the holder has been asked to supply such data on a monthly basis, i.e. more regularly than is normally required.

4. Viagra is being monitored closely, and there is no need to alter the current position. Should new information indicate otherwise, measures would be taken without delay to protect patients.

5. The information given in the package leaflet has also been evaluated by the EMEA and authorised by the Commission. Using language accessible to patients, it includes all the information given in the summary of product characteristics intended for health care professionals. Any changes to the summary are automatically made to the leaflet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0928/00

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Publication of business accounts

In the United Kingdom a private limited company is required by law each year to publish its accounts and file them so that they are readily available to anyone who wishes to see them. As a result, its competitors are able to gain valuable commercial information on which to plan their marketing strategy.

In Germany, the law also states that a private company or partnership is required to publish its accounts, but if it does not, it is subject to a small fine. It appears that many German companies prefer to pay the fine and not publish their accounts, because they do not wish to give their competitors a commercial advantage.

Can the Commission please advise:

1. Whether it considers this discrepancy in national legislation to contravene internal market principles, since it provides an unfair competitive advantage to certain categories of company?

2. Whether the competitive disadvantage of UK private companies is reflected in other countries, apart from Germany?

3. If the answer to 1 is affirmative, what action it proposes to take to address the problem?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission does view as a breach of internal market principles the failure by national authorities to ensure the publication of annual accounts by limited companies (as required by the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community(1) and Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies(2)).

For this reason, infringement proceedings were launched against Germany in relation to its failure to impose appropriate sanctions against companies which fail to file their annual accounts as required by Articles 2(1)(f), 3 and 6 of Council Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47(1) of Council Directive 78/660/EEC.

The Court of justice gave a judgement in the Commission's favour on the 28 September 1998 (Case C-191/95) stating that mldr by failing to provide for appropriate penalties in cases where companies limited by shares fail to effect compulsory disclosure of their annual accounts as prescribed, in particular, by Articles 2(1)(f), 3 and 6 of the First Directive, in conjunction with Article 47(1) of the Fourth Directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. Consequently, Germany is currently adopting legislation which will rectify the situation.

The Commission is not aware of this problem existing in any other Member State.

(1) OJ L 65, 14.3.1968.

(2) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/00

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

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Sea transport: European accident

Two European vessels the Zafir and Espresso Catania, recently collided in Italian waters, for reasons as yet unelucidated; the Zafir sank and 10 of its crew lost their lives, their corpses remaining on board the wreck which is lying at a depth of some 400 metres.

Has the Commission taken any steps to elucidate a tragedy which yet again involves maritime safety in European waters, European vessels and the lives of European citizens?

What action has been taken? Is whatever action which may be taken by the Member States concerned being coordinated at Member State level?

As far as recovery of the bodies of the men lost is concerned which their families are demanding, with every reason, the passive attitude displayed both by the European institutions and the Member States concerned is deplorable. What urgent measures has the Commission considered taking to resolve this tragic situation?

What measures does the Commission think should be taken to ensure that such occurrences do not happen again?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission learned through the press that the cargo vessel Zafir had been lost off the coast of Calabria, Italy. It regrets the terrible consequences of the sinking and the irreparable loss of human life, and extends its sympathy to the families of the victims.

As regards the causes of the accident, it is necessary to wait for the results of the enquiry being conducted by the Italian authorities. The Commission must emphasise that rescues at sea do not fall within its jurisdiction, which is why the authorities involved in following up the accident have not sought its assistance.

To prevent similar accidents occurring in future, the Commission adopted a communication on 21 March 2000 on the safety of the seaborne oil trade(1), which proposes a series of immediate and longer-term measures.

To start with, the inspection of ships calling at Community ports is to be stepped up, and vessels failing to meet standards are to be dealt with strictly. Classification societies are to be monitored more fully.

The Commission is also proposing to ban single-hull oil tankers from Community waters, following a timetable similar to that adopted in the United States.

Subsequently, the Commission plans to make further proposals regarding systematic exchange of information between all the actors in the shipping community, improved surveillance of navigation, the creation of a European body for maritime safety and measures concerning the liability of the various players in the seaborne oil trade.

(1) COM(2000) 142 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Improving road safety by tackling accident black spots and sections of road with high accident rates

The most recent information concerning the new communication on road safety currently being drawn up by the Commission seems to indicate that the new programme classifies the proposed measures by order of effectiveness, on the basis of the now-popular measure of EUR 1 million.

However, like previous programmes, which were too general in nature, the new communication may miss a unique opportunity to take more decisive action on infrastructure and, more specifically, on black spots, using engineering techniques which experts term low cost.

What effectiveness rating does the Commission's new communication attach to tackling accident black spots and improving sections of road with high accident rates as a road safety measure?

Does the Commission intend to issue Europe-wide recommendations on the definition and typology of these low-cost engineering techniques?

Finally, does the Commission intend to draw up Europe-wide recommendations on tackling accident black spots, and to create a budget line for co-financing relevant projects at national level?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2000)

In its forthcoming communication on road safety, the low cost infrastructure measures including improvements to the layout and design of roadside objects to reduce the severity of injury in a road accident, and management of black spots, have been identified as priorities.

In general these measures appear to be very cost-effective with an estimated cost per avoided fatality starting at around 80 000.

Investments in these infrastructure measures have to be left to local authorities but the Commission will develop guidelines in order to exchange best practice experience. Moreover authorities at all levels are recommended to bring the benefit of such measures closer to those who decide on the investments by means of targeted financial programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0654/00

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: European aid for victims of crime

What action can the Commission take to ensure that victims of crime receive a better hearing and greater understanding, counselling and support and that their interests are taken into account both in the judicial process and as regards redress, compensation and human, social and psychological follow-up in all countries of the European Union?

A commitment of this kind by the Commission would help to ensure the protection of victims' rights, a natural corollary of the free movement of persons, and would be a further step towards a people's Europe.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

In its communication of 14 July 1999 on Crime victims in the European Union Reflections on standards and action(1), the Commission argued that regarding both assistance to crime victims and victims' access to and standing in their own process, a number of steps to improve the situation should be considered. On the basis of reactions to the communication and expert advice to be obtained in the course of a number of events to be organised at European level in the coming months, the Commission will decide what kind of action needs to be taken to bring forward this important matter. The Commission has noted with satisfaction that Portugal has already taken an initiative and proposed a framework decision on the standing of the victim in the criminal procedure.

As regards the compensation of victims of criminal offences, the Commission is both urging all the Member States to ratify the 1983 European Convention on the compensation of victims of violent crimes and examining the question in depth so as to improve the situation of victims.

(1) COM(1999) 349 final.