ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/98

by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Technical standards for electrical surveillance equipment

Is there any EU technical standard in existence which would safeguard heart pace-makers in the vicinity of electrical surveillance equipment (store security tags, CCTV, etc.), and if not, does the Commission see the need for such a standard?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

Heart pace-makers on the European market must comply with the provisions of Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices(1).

The essential requirements of this directive specifically address the protection against the risks resulting from the influence of environmental conditions which are reasonably foreseeable and, in particular, of electromagnetic fields, including those which are emitted by electrical surveillance equipments used, for example, in department stores.

In support of the implementation of this directive, a draft European standard on implantable heart pace-makers (pr EN45 502, superseding EN 50 061) has been prepared. Some requirements of this standard address the issue of the immunity of heart pace-makers to such external electromagnetic fields.

However, the risks resulting from electromagnetic fields emitted by surveillance equipments cannot be completely eliminated by technical requirements applying solely to heart pace-makers. Therefore, Directive 90/385/EEC requires the manufacturer of pace-makers to provide information accompanying the pace-makers on precautions to be taken for protection against the risks of external electromagnetic interferences. Furthermore, adequate safety measures applying to electrical surveillance equipment should be considered, taking account of the risk inherent to such kind of equipment.

(1) OJ L 189, 20.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Cost of job creation

In its communication on environment and employment (COM(97) 592 final) the Commission says that in 1996 around 1 500 jobs were created under LIFE projects, at a cost for one fill time job per year of around ECU 30 000. Does the Commission agree this is an extremely high cost per job and does it have any idea how to make these jobs more cost effective?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

The main aim of Life Nature projects is the protection of natural areas and habitats. Job creation is a secondary, albeit positive, effect. Cost-effectiveness considerations can thus not apply to the same extent as if measures without an environmental purpose were carried out.

The figure for the cost of each full time job per year given in box 6 "Employment effect of Life Nature projects" in Annex 2 of the communication from the Commission on environment and employment (building a sustainable Europe)(1) is an average figure based on a relatively small number of projects and was among the findings of the evaluation of 1996 Life Nature projects. The figure presents an indication rather than the absolute costs in the field of nature conservation. In addition, these costs only relate to direct jobs and do not take account of indirect employment effects such as through newly created or expanded tourism activities and rural accommodation. It should be noted that the location where some of these jobs are being created is important, since Life Nature projects often provide an opportunity to develop activities in remote places where no other possibilities for job creation exist.

(1) COM(97) 592 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1977/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Safety standards for children's pushchairs

Is the Commission satisfied with the current safety standards for children's pushchairs that exist in the EU and, in particular, the safety standards relating to what are known as "rear assembly" platforms?

Does the Commission have any further comments to make on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1998)

So far, the Commission has had no reason to feel concern about platforms that allow a second child to be carried, standing, at the back of a pushchair. Moreover, there have been no notifications concerning such products under the rapid warning system set up pursuant to Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety(1) to warn about the presence of dangerous products on Community territory.

As regards safety standards, although national standards exist, such as the United Kingdom¢s BS 4792, there is as yet no European standard on children¢s pushchairs. However, work is in progress on this matter and a draft standard is due to be submitted shortly to the national members of the CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) for their vote.

The platforms in question are not dealt with in this draft standard. If, however, they turned out to constitute a particular danger they could be considered in a future revision of the European standard, and the Commission will remain watchful in this regard.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2071/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: The "Camino Europa" project

A recently conducted survey of 1 300 students at the University of Madrid entitled "Camino Europa" (Road to Europe) has shown that seven out of ten would be willing to work in another EU country, 78 % of them consider themselves "European", and 75 % are in favour of the single currency.

Such enthusiastic commitment to Europe should be taken on board so as to avoid any possible disappointment for those who took part in the survey once they have left university. Hence the need to open up flexible channels to provide young pro-European university students from the various Member States with access to jobs in countries other than their own.

Does the Commission believe that this heartening survey should encourage the creation in the various Member States of the aforementioned contact channels listing employment opportunities, as a means of promoting employment mobility across all the Member States for university graduates who have completed their studies in their home countries?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

The Commission appreciates the fact that young people with qualifications are among the people most willing to make use of geographical mobility in order to work in another Member State.

It attaches considerable importance to arrangements which allow European citizens to exercise the right of freedom of movement granted to them by the EC Treaty. This is why, for instance, it supports the EURES network of public employment services, social partners and other local-level partners. The task of this network, which makes use of more than 500 Euroadvisers and modern information technologies, is to inform and advise jobseekers (or employers) in the context of geographical mobility. It helps people find a job abroad, through a database containing around 100 000 specially selected vacancies. Details of some of these vacancies are now available on the EURES Internet site (http://europa.eu.int/jobs/eures), which also offers links to the sites of many public employment services throughout Europe.

A detailed presentation of EURES activities may be found in the report(1) adopted by the Commission on 3 July 1998 and transmitted to the European Parliament.

(1) COM(98) 413 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1460/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Harmonization of the permitted maximum levels of DDT in certain fish species

My previous questions P-0385/97(1) and P-0906/97(2) raised the problem of the permitted levels of contaminants (such as DDT) in fish species and the maximum levels laid down by the Member States.

Can the Commission indicate whether procedures have been set in motion for the harmonization of the limits permitted in the various Member States?

Can the Commission update the list of Member States which have adopted legislation on the permitted maximum quantities of the organochlorine insecticide known as DDT found in some fish species ( and say to what extent this has been done)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

The situation in the various Member States with regard to legislation relating to maximum pesticide residue levels for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) remains unchanged.

The Commission has not set in motion procedures for the harmonisation of the limits permitted in the various Member States.

A detailed overview (Member State by Member State), based on updated information from the Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 170.

(2) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/98

by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Flanking measures in the context of the abolition of the duty-free sector

The decision to abolish the duty-free sector with effect from 30 June 1999 (Directive 91/680(EEC))(1) was confirmed when the Ecofin Council refused to accede to Ireland's request for the impact assessment which had been promised to the Members of the European Parliament by Commissioner Scrivener in 1992, and duly noted by them.

While such a decision may be regarded as questionable when tax harmonisation has hardly been begun in the Member States of the EU, one is entitled to wonder what domestic and European mechanisms will need to be put in place to help restructure the duty free sectors.

I should be glad if the Commission would explain its position. What flanking measures does it intend to adopt, and what mechanisms will it use, to help the sectors which currently benefit from the duty-free scheme to adapt to the new situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it is for Member States to analyse the consequences of abolishing duty-free sales on 30 June 1999, in line with the decision taken unanimously within the Council in 1991. They should also take any accompanying measures deemed by them to be necessary.

The Commission would further point out that on 19 May 1998 it undertook before the Ecofin Council to draw up a working paper clarifying the instruments that could be deployed by Member States to mitigate any difficulties they might encounter.

That paper, which summarises existing mechanisms at Community level, is currently being drafted. Parliament will, of course, be kept informed of developments.

(1) OJ L 376, 31.12.1991, p .1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/98

by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Dismissal of distinguished Turkish journalists

On the basis of concocted "information" supplied by an alleged leading member of the PKK, the Turkish generals have forced the employers of two distinguished Turkish journalists, Mehmet Ali Birad and Ghengiz Çantar, to dismiss them. In addition, there are fears that their dismissal also signals the go-ahead for the "liquidation" of the two Turkish journalists by rogue elements in Turkey who are operating in close cooperation with the official authorities, as the events at Sokuluk have demonstrated. All these events are taking place at the same time as Turkey and some of its economic partners are insisting that the leaders of the country are sincere in wanting Turkey to have closer relations with the Union.

1. What practical measures will the Commission take to protect the two journalists from a probable assassination attempt?

2. What instructions will the Commissioner responsible and the Commission's representative in Turkey issue to give the two journalists all possible moral support and other assistance?

3. When will the Commission explain to the Turkish leadership - in plain terms - that the principles on which Europe's democracies are based also include freedom of expression and thought and that it is not possible to ignore, for economic or any other form of gain, Turkey's renewed drift towards autocracy and totalitarianism?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

The Commission considers the improvement of the human rights situation and the continuation of democratisation in Turkey of particular importance to the development of relations between the Community and Turkey.

It would refer the Honourable Member to the conclusions of December's Luxembourg European Council, which noted that strengthening Turkey's links with the European Union also depends on that country's pursuit of the political and economic reforms on which it has embarked, including the alignment of human rights standards and practices on those in force in the Community.

To that end, the Commission keeps a close watch on the situation of the country's journalists. As for the two journalists specifically mentioned by the Honourable Member, both have almost fully resumed their professional activities. Their physical protection is outside the Commission's sphere of competence.

The Commission will continue conveying to its Turkish partners the Community's concerns in such matters, and in particular those raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1707/98

by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Delegation of powers to joint-trade organizations

In the event of a serious crisis affecting one of more national agricultural products subject to a common market organization (COM), the current Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice authorize the Member States, and the Member States alone, to take emergency measures in order to avoid serious public order disturbances.

Further to Decrees Nos 96-449 and 96-500 of 7 June 1996, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic of 11 June 1996, pp 8.644 and 8.645, the French Government is preparing to submit to the French National Assembly an agricultural guidelines bill (PLOA), Article 51 whereof lays down that, in order to cope with short-term economic crises... by authorizing the supply in terms of quality and volume to be adjusted to meet market requirements, contracts may be concluded between trade organizations representing producers or recognized producer groups and trade organizations representing the processing, marketing or distribution sectors....

The contracts will include provisions enabling the following restrictions to be imposed on the normal rules on competition:

1. scheduling of putting into production or supply

2. tightening up the standards and quality criteria required for placing on the market.

The two decrees referred to above have been the subject of a formal complaint lodged with the Commission on the grounds of non-compliance with the basic rules of the Treaty on European Union. To date, the Commission has taken no action whatsoever thereon. Although somewhat less strict compared with the substance of these two decrees, Article 51 of the agricultural guidelines bill (PLOA) still delegates to trade organizations powers to which they are not entitled and which may not be the subject of such delegation of powers.

Would the Commission indicate and justify its assessment of these two decrees and of the substance of Article 51 of the French PLOA in the light of the above remarks?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1705/98 and E-1707/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 1998)

The French authorities communicated to the Commission on 13 May 1998 the general agricultural policy bill that they plan to present to the French Parliament in the coming weeks.

At present, the Commission is examining the bill as a whole in the light of Community law, including the provisions on the trade organisations to which the Honourable Member refers.

Given the short period since the bill was notified, the Commission has not yet reached an opinion on it. In any event, when the Commission comes to a conclusion on this wide-ranging bill, the Honourable Member will have an answer regarding the substance of his questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/98

by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Council

(17 June 1998)

Subject: Situation of conscientious objectors in Greece

Is the Council aware that in Greece, contrary to its own legislation and against all opinions including that of the European Parliament, conscientious objectors are still being hindered in their quest to have their status recognized and for the right to perform alternative civilian service. Apparently some have even been imprisoned.

What measures does the Council propose to take to bring to the Greek Government's attention the unacceptable nature of these activities? Does the Council agree that in acting in this way Greece is seriously infringing human rights and thereby risks no longer fulfilling the requirements for membership of the European Union?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council is unable to adopt a position on the questions raised by the Honourable Member, which fall entirely within the purview of the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo

Following the visit to Togo by observers from the EU, the EU Presidency expressed deep concerns about the legitimacy of the Presidential elections held in that country. As the European Union has serious doubts about the credibility of the election results announced by the Togolese Minister of the Interior on 24 June, what action is the Commission taking to ensure democracy in Togo?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

Following the EU statement of 26 June 1998 that it seriously doubted the credibility of the election results announced on 24 June 1998 by the Togolese Minister of the Interior, the Commission proposed that the Council invite Togo to hold consultations under Article 366a of the revised Lomé Convention to assess the situation in detail and, if necessary, to remedy it. Such consultations may be requested where a party to the Lomé Convention considers that another party has failed to fulfil an obligation in respect of one of the essential elements referred to in Article 5, in this case a failure to respect human rights or democratic principles and the rule of law. An invitation to such consultations, signed by the President of the Council and by the Commission was addressed to Togo on 13 July 1998. The consultations began on 30 July 1998.

By initiating the procedure provided for in Article 366a of the Convention, the Union has shown the importance it attaches to the essential elements (Article 5) which are the basis of its relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The objective of the consultations is not to suspend cooperation, but to engage in real, in-depth dialogue to help find a way to restore the rule of law and respect for democratic principles. If, despite all efforts, no solution has been found by the end of the consultations, the party which invoked the failure to fulfil an obligation may take appropriate measures including, if necessary, the partial or total suspension of the application of the Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Council

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Encouraging official aid for pro-European associations

Promoting awareness of pro-European values is a necessary ambition which the European Union must endorse unreservedly, for it will ensure that European citizens of all backgrounds and from every walk of life identify with the ideal of a Community whose ideas and aspirations bind the nations of Europe together.

Pro-European associations work especially hard to publicize and promote this ideal. Their efforts have given many European citizens a focus through which they can express their pro-European aspirations and contribute towards achieving them. However, these associations must have the resources necessary to carry out their activities.

Does the Council not think it should encourage all Member States to introduce fixed financing arrangements for the said associations, so that the funding thus provided would ensure that they possessed sufficient resources to lend their invaluable assistance to the cause of helping citizens identify with the European Union's aims?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council notes with satisfaction the considerable efforts already made by Member States on the issue of subsidies for pro-European associations.

As regards the possibility, to which the Honourable Member refers, of Member States introducing "fixed financing arrangements" for such associations, it is not for the Council, but for the Member States themselves, to deal with this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/98

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: EU standard for listeria

There is no binding, uniform standard in the EU for limit values for listeria. In the past the Member States' differing positions on permissible levels of listeria have led to distortions of the market, causing considerable damage to enterprises.

For this reason, and with a view to enabling the fish processing industry to plan ahead safely, does the Commission consider that it would be desirable to establish an EU standard for listeria in fish products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Listeria monocytogenes is the infectious agent of Listeriosis. This is a bacterial disease usually manifested during pregnancy or among immunocompromised individuals as an acute meningoencephalitis with or without associated septicaemia (very often neonatal).

The disease could be transmitted to humans by food. The micro-organism could be present in a wide range of food, including almost all the animal products (independent of their degree of processing), and also raw vegetables. It is important to underline that the micro-organism is very resistant to low temperatures (in particular those usually recommended for domestic conservation).

The Commission recognises that the scientific committees have indicated that the setting of limits for micro-organisms in foods may not always be the most effective strategy for dealing with the risk to health from certain contaminating bacteria. However, the Commission will request the scientific committees to examine the question of risk to health presented by Listeria in fishery products and other foodstuffs which may be consumed without further cooking.