ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4141/97 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Failure to provide information to European works councils

The Swiss multinational Ericsson produces technology for the most powerful sector of the world economy, telecommunications. Most if its resources are in Europe, mainly in Sweden, with its main market being the European Union.

The company has reached agreements with two United States companies for the latter to take over manufacture of all Ericsson's communications equipment worldwide. This decision may have serious consequences for thousands of European workers employed by the Ericsson Group and the imposition of this plan in Spain would involve the transfer of numerous workers to other companies. This operation offers no guarantees of industrial stability or of employment with the new company and, in addition, jeopardizes other jobs in auxiliary and service industries currently working for Ericsson in Spain.

Bearing in mind that the European works council representing workers at Ericsson was neither informed nor consulted on this decision and that trade union representatives in both countries were notified unofficially after it had been carried out:

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Is the Commission aware that Ericsson's main global market is in the EU and that, if this policy is carried out, this multinational company will no longer be meeting the responsibilities incumbent upon it in terms of maintaining jobs and creating an industrial fabric, given the scale of the benefits it reaps in Europe?

3. Does the Commission not consider that the abandonment of industrial activities by major companies can lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in a very important sector employing unskilled workers in the European Union?

4. Does the Commission consider that Ericsson has violated the right to information and consultation of workers laid down in Directive 94/45/EEC? ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.)) Will the Commission ensure that Ericsson complies with the directive as regards the establishment of a European Works Council and an information and consultation procedure for workers in Community-scale undertakings and groups of undertakings?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4141/97 and E-4218/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 February 1998)

No complaint or request for action has been made to the Commission by the interested parties concerning the facts described by the Honourable Members.

At present the Commission is carrying out a global evaluation of the transposition into national law of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees. Infringements by firms of the rules laid down in this Directive must be assessed in the light of the national provisions transposing the Directive into national law. It is first and foremost for the national authorities to ensure compliance with these provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3957/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Human rights in Burma

The Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Van Mierlo, informed the Netherlands Lower Chamber that he intended to request consideration at EU level of the judgment on 15 August by which the Burmese trade union executive member Mr U Myo Aung Thant was condemned to life imprisonment for smuggling explosives. In the same trial three further Burmese human rights activists were condemned to 10 year terms in prison. These judgments were handed down after a trial behind closed doors.

Has the Commission already received the request from the Netherlands Minister and what can and will the Commission undertake with regard to these judgments which, according to human rights organizations and the International Association of Trade Unions, are based on faulty evidence and a dishonest trial?

What is the Commission's view in general on the human rights situation in Burma? Does it consider that the situation is deteriorating?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (23 January 1998)

The Commission is not yet cognizant of the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member. It will in any event be for the Member State concerned to raise this matter as part of the CSFP consultations which are usually held in cases of this kind.

The Commission has raised individual cases or lists of prisoners of conscience on appropriate occasions with various governments. This is also done, on a regular basis, by the Member States whenever high-level contacts with the governments in question allow for this.

There are no high-level contacts with the Burmese junta formerly known as State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) which would allow the Union to have a substantial dialogue with Burma. Several attempts by the Union to enter into a critical dialogue with Burma have failed so far because of the absence of willingness on the Burmese side to have such a dialogue.

A common position on this subject was adopted by the Council on 23 October 1996 forbidding any political contact with the SLORC. The common position has twice been extended for a period of six months.

The possibilities for raising the issue of prisoners of conscience are therefore limited to declarations or démarches by the Union, as well as to the ongoing work of the United Nations (UN) human rights commission and the general assembly where the Commission regularly gives full support to the initiatives taken to denounce human rights violations in Burma and to request improvement of the human rights situation in general.

The Commission will of course bear in mind the case brought to its attention by the Honourable Member and will be most happy to use the first opportunity it has to draw specific attention to the case of U Myo Aung Thant.

Regarding the overall situation in Burma, the Commission shares the view of the UN special rapporteur that despite a few positive signs the overall situation in Burma has not improved. This absence of progress remains of grave concern to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3131/97 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Follow-up question on passenger seating space on airlines

In my written question of 24 March 1997 (E-1118/97) to the Commission ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 80. )) I proposed the introduction of a directive on minimum seating space for air passengers, citing health reasons among others.

In her reply Commissioner Kinnock stated that the Commission does not regard a directive as necessary but 'will ... take up this matter through its regular contacts with the relevant operators'.

During the past year a number of airlines have reduced the legroom in tourist class. In the USA a medical study has been published which stresses the damage to health caused by being confined in a cramped space, referring inter alia to confirmed cases of heart attacks.

I should therefore like to know whether, and with what result, the Commission has contacted the transport operators referred to in its answer, and what importance it attaches to eliminating the health risks which are becoming ever more apparent.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission is concerned with the health and safety of all involved in air travel, including both airline staff and passengers. Community legislation already regulates the safety standards of aircraft operated by Community operators, and the Commission is satisfied as to the general safety of these aircrafts.

Minimum specifications apply to aircraft seat spacing in order to meet strict evacuation requirements. Beyond that, the Commission holds that this is a question primarily of comfort and does not believe there is any necessity, nor indeed any possibility, to propose legislation on the basis of safety provisions set out in the EC Treaty.

The increasing range of services offered by tour operators and 'no-frills' airlines is to an extent dependent on carrying the greatest number of passengers per flight, which may impinge upon individual comfort. It is for air users to decide their own 'trade-off' between comfort and price.

So long as the Commission has Cause for concern on safety grounds, it will not bring forward proposals. Nevertheless, the Commission will continue to advise relevant operators of the concerns that have been expressed to it, but it is for the operators, in their own commercial interests, to act upon such concerns.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Effect on Estonia of changes to the tasks of the PHARE programme

The European Union gives aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through its PHARE programme. The Commission's guidelines regarding the PHARE programme for the next few years have changed the aid system to some extent. What effect does the Commission consider these changes will have on aid to Estonia in 1998 as compared with 1997?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3692/97 and E-3699/97 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member concerning the 1997 and 1998 Phare programmes in Estonia as follows:

1. 1997 programme

a) National programme

The 1997 Phare-funded country operational programme of a total amount of 29.6 MECU includes the following components:

>TABLE>

In addition, 1.2 MECU has been committed for Tempus.

The financing memorandum for the 1997 programme was signed in February 1997 and implementation is progressing. However, impact assessments can be made only when the individual programme components have been fully implemented.

b) Cross-border cooperation programme

3.1 MECU has been committed for cross-border cooperation.

2. 1998 programme

The programming of the 1998 Phare programme will take place only in the second quarter of 1998. However, the programme will focus on the most priorities identified in the Commission's opinion on Estonia with an estimated 30% being devoted to institution building and 70% for support of specific investments in sectors such as environment, transport and agriculture.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3936/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Food hygiene

Now that the Commission has reorganized responsibility for food safety in response to Parliament's pressure after the BSE crisis, does it not agree that it is time for the long-awaited proposal for a Framework Directive on Food Hygiene to be drawn up? If so, when does the Commission intend to submit it?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1998)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member of the existence of Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs ((OJ L 175, 19.7.1993. )). Article 1(1) of this Directive 'lays down the general rules of hygiene for foodstuffs'.

In accordance with Article 1(2) of the Directive in question, the Commission is looking into ways and means of making this Directive and the more specific rules which apply to some categories of foodstuffs more coherent. This work should be completed in the course of 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3944/97 by Guido Viceconte (UPE) to the Commission (4 December 1997)

Subject: Imports of textile goods and failure to comply with Community labelling rules

For about a year, the Italian market has been invaded by non-Community textile products imported through a triangle of states (Bangladesh-UK-Italy) so as to evade Community rules and quotas.

More specifically, these textile imports are in breach Community labelling rules as they carry no indication of their composition or country of origin, and they are causing considerable economic damage to Community products and, in particular, are harming local economies, such as the textile centre of Barletta, which is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises which make a vital contribution to GDP and to employment in Southern Italy by manufacturing finished knitted and woven articles which comply fully with Community rules on consumer protection.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is aware of this anomalous and most unsatisfactory situation which is harming more than 300 firms in Apulia?

2. What action it intends to take, and when, to put an end to these breaches of competition law, protect the interests of European consumers and guarantee them correct information?

3. What measures it intends to take to step up checks at the EU's external borders on imports of textile goods which breach Community rules?

4. Whether it plans measures to give the above-mentioned firms financial compensation for the economic losses they have suffered?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

Quotas under the Multifibre Agreement have been established for the Community as a whole since 1 January 1992. With regard to Bangladesh, there is no restriction on quantity, merely administrative cooperation provisions providing for a double control based on the granting of export and import licences.

Directive 96/74/EC on textile names, as amended by Directive 97/37/EC ((Commission Directive 97/37/EC of 19 June 1997 adapting to technical progress Annexes I and II to Directive 96/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile names, OJ L 169, 27.6.1997. )), stipulates that textile products may not be placed on the market within the Community unless they satisfy the provisions of the abovementioned Directives. Where such products are offered to the ultimate consumer they must bear a label indicating their fibre content.

Labelling of the country of origin is not compulsory at Community level, though some Member States do require it.

If the textile products imported into the Community from Bangladesh fail to satisfy the Directive's labelling provisions, the parties concerned may lodge a complaint with the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Growth promoters

The suspicion that Tylosin in pig feed may result in human resistance to the drug erythromycin is alarming. Will the Commission therefore propose rules for the marking of meat from pigs reared using growth promoters?

Will the Commission also propose taxes on antibiotic growth promoters for use in pig feed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Commission must remind the Honourable Member that under the terms of the legislation on additives in animal feedingstuffs and the tests carried out for the granting of Community authorisation, such additives must not pose a risk to animal or human health or to the environment or prejudice the consumer by altering the characteristics of animal products.

As the Commission indicated in its reply to question E-3388/97 ((OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 51. )) submitted by the Honourable Member, it has no information showing a causal relationship between the use of tylosin in pig feed and resistance to erythromycin among bacteria pathogenic for man. However, if the review of the authorisation granted for tylosin requested by Finland reveals any risk to consumer health, the Commission will immediately propose a ban on the product.

Therefore, since the additives used in animal feedingstuffs are judged to be safe, the Commission does not consider it necessary to provide for specific labelling of the animal products concerned.

The Commission does not intend to propose taxing the abovementioned products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3899/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Rai International and protection of information

In order to ensure that news and programmes reach the Italian community living overseas, Italian television has for some time been operating an Italian-language service which broadcasts programme schedules originally produced in the studios in Rome.

However, the essential requirements of balance and pluralism which should be the hallmark of public service broadcasting are not met in these programme and, as they are broadcast overseas, they escape the control of the parliamentary watchdog committee.

Will the Commission intervene with a directive laying down standards of objectivity, balance, independence and pluralism for public service broadcasters?

Will the Commission also put forward a directive to protect Community viewers from the distortions of biased information and guarantee them independent, pluralist news coverage?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

Community law makes no provision for 'internal pluralism' in television services, as this is, theoretically, a matter for the Member States.

The Protocol on the system of public broadcasting annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam confirms the competence of the Member States to confer, define and organise the public service remit for broadcasting, such as that entrusted to Radio Televisione Italiana (RAI).

In the absence of any appropriate legal basis in the EC Treaty, and without prejudice to its position as regards the need for measures such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not at this stage planning to propose that Parliament and the Council adopt any legislative acts on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Working conditions of airline crew members

Is the Commission aware of the controversy raging in almost all of the Member States - Italy in particular - regarding the working conditions of airline crew members (pilots, flight engineers and cabin staff)?

Those concerned maintain that their working conditions have become particularly stressful owing not least to increasingly fierce competition between airlines over recent years, which has resulted in a heavier workload for staff. Research carried out by Professor Scano indicates that this is seriously weakening crew members' immune systems, increasing their vulnerability to infections (tropical diseases in particular).

Given the above, does the Commission intend to take action in support of air crews?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

As the Honourable Member is probably aware the civil aviation sector is excluded from Council Directive No 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )).

The Commission is currently engaged in preparing proposals to regulate working time and rest periods in this sector. Current initiatives are based on the responses to the Commission white paper of July 1997 on sectors and activities excluded from the working time Directive. Proposals should be adopted by the Commission by summer 1998.

However, Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work ((OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. )) requires employers, within the context of their responsibilities, to take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers. One of the general principles of prevention on which the employer has to base the implementation of these measures is 'developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors related to the working environment' (Article 6.2(g)).

The Directive has been transposed by Italy and it is for the Italian authorities to decide how it should be put into practice.

The Commission has identified the prevention of stress at work as an important health and safety issue, and intends to develop guidelines on stress at work, which take into account the recommendations of the 'Report on work-related stress' produced by its tripartite advisory committee for safety, hygiene and health protection at work and which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission believes these actions are also suitable for application to specific industries or occupations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Failure to fill the position of director of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville (IPTS)

At the end of 1996 Mr Herbert J. Allgeier left the position of director of the IPTS which he had held since August 1994. Almost one year later, no new director of the centre has been appointed, a fact that is all the more disturbing given the newness of this specialized body of the JRC (Joint Research Centre), which was set up in Seville in September 1994 and given a mandate by Commissioner Edith Cresson one year later following the appointment of the new Commission. When does the Commission intend to fill this vacancy?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 January 1998)

During its 1367th meeting, which was held on 16 December 1997, the Commission decided to appoint Mr Cadiou to the post of Director of the JRC's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies in Seville.