ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Services for the management of external relations/development cooperation

Following my oral question of 27 January 1998 (H-98/98)(1) and Mr Peter Crampton's question of March 1998 (E-1122/98)(2) concerning the Commission's reorganization of its services for the management of development cooperation, would the Commission provide further information about the impact of the new "common service" on the funding of NGOs?

Would the Commission also state:

1. Where the new "common service" will be located and when it will become operational?

2. Whether it is anticipated that there will be staff reductions in the DGs responsible for external relations as a result of the establishment of the "common service"?

3. With reference to the funding of NGOs:

(a) What impact will the setting up of the "common service" have on the management of the cofinancing of NGOs (budget line B7-6000) and on the structure of the DG VII B/2 unit?

(b) Will there be any changes, and if so which, to administrative procedures for the submission of requests and for evaluation reports?

(c) Will the "common service" lead to greater standardization of procedures between the various budget lines relating to NGO programmes?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

1. The common service will be based in Brussels. The organigramme of the common service, together with the new structures of the Directorates general in charge of external relations were approved on 1 July 1998. The common service will be operational on 1 September 1998.

2. The common service will be staffed by personnel transferred from the Directorates-general in charge of external relations. It will not itself result in any change in overall staffing levels.

3. In line with the division of tasks decided by the Commission, the geographical Directorates-general will remain responsible for programming, identification, appraisal and financing decisions, whilst the common service will then manage implementation (calls for tenders, award and signature of contracts, contract performance and payments). In the case of the non-governmental organisation (NGO) co-financing scheme (budget line B7-6000), the Directorate-general for Development (DG VIII) will remain responsible for dealing with all requests for financing, with the common service managing the implementation of approved actions. This will include the transfer of the relevant staff from unit VIII/B/2.

Presentation of co-financing requests by NGOs will continue to be made to DG VIII according to present procedures. All matters relating to implementation, including presentation of reports, will be dealt with by the common service.

One of the main aims of the Commission in deciding to establish the common service is to achieve greater rationalisation and simplification of procedures. This certainly includes the various budget lines which are of particular concern to NGOs.

(1) Debates of the EP (February 1998).

(2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 84.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2016/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Highly enriched uranium supplies for the Munich research reactor (FRM II)

Unfortunately, some parts of Written Question E-1113/98(1) have not been answered at all and the Commission is asked to answer the following outstanding questions:

1. Is it correct that the highly enriched uranium (HEU) is intended solely for use in the FRM-II and its further movement within Germany or within the EU is not permitted?

2. On what grounds does the EU accept prior consent rights for Russia for highly enriched uranium when the USA was not granted such rights?

3. What is the situation of the talks (formal or informal) between the EU and Russia on their own nuclear framework agreement?

4. Did the Council give a mandate for official negotiations on such an agreement? If so, when and what did the mandate cover?

5. What consequences would the conclusion of a framework agreement between the EU and the Russian Government have on the effectiveness of the bilateral German-Russian Agreement? Would Russia keep its prior consent rights regarding the use and further movement of the 1,2 tonnes of HEU for the FRM-II?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

1. The highly enriched uranium (HEU) is foreseen exclusively for Munich research reactor (FRM) II. However, the manufacture into fuel elements may take place in France or in the United Kingdom. HEU supplies are very specialised transactions and their programme of transformation and use in the Community is therefore limited in practice.

In this context the Honourable Member is referred to the ministerial common policy declaration adopted by the ministers for foreign affairs of the Euratom Community on 20 November 1984 (published as International atomic energy agency (IAEA) document INFCIRC/322). The agreement between Germany and the Russian Federation has to be consistent with that declaration, including its provisions on use of the materials concerned. Moreover, as already indicated in answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1113/98, the Commission has concluded that the agreement does not contain clauses which impede, in practice, the application of the Euratom Treaty. This includes the requirement for free movement of nuclear material within the Community.

2. The nuclear cooperation agreement between Euratom and the United States also provides for cooperation in the area of plutonium and HEU (Annex A to the agreement). This cooperation is also facility specific. There is therefore a general consistency in the approach of the cooperation which indicates in which installations in the Community transformations take place.

3. to 5. Informal explanatory discussions on a general framework nuclear agreement are taking place and the Commission has made no proposal to the Council. The consequences of any such agreement cannot be foreseen until the agreement is finalised.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 65.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Swine fever in Spain

With reference to the above topic, could the Commission provide the following information:

1. Are there any plans for special measures to be adopted to support the pigmeat market in the Spanish region of Extremadura? If so, what kind of measures are envisaged?

2. Has the appropriate amendment been made to Regulation (EC) 913/97(1), which relates to the type of special measures involved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The measures introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) 913/97 of 22 May 1997 adopting exceptional support measures for the pigmeat market in Spain apply exclusively to the regions of Spain which are affected by classical swine fever and are consequently subjected to the veterinary and health restrictions provided for in Community legislation. The region of Extremadura is not affected by the epizootic. Hence there is no justification to include that region under the exceptional market support measures.

(1) OJ L 131, 23.5.1997, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/98

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Swedish Match and unfair competition

Is the Commission aware that due to the complaint by Swedish Match being upheld last year and the consequent severe anti-dumping penalty surcharges being imposed on Japanese match suppliers, match companies, including the Imperial Match Company in my constituency, have had to adjust their prices upwards to maintain profit margins?

Is the Commission also aware that Swedish Match have at the same time managed to reduce their prices by 30 %, which other companies are finding impossible to compete with?

Would the Commission agree that this seems to give Swedish Match the sort of unfair competition in the match market that they were so keen to prevent?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

1. The Council adopted on 15 October 1997 Regulation (EC) 2025/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of advertising matches originating in Japan(1). The investigation in this case had shown that Japanese exporters were selling their products on the Community market at dumped prices and were thereby causing injury to the Community producers of advertising matches.

Indeed, the very purpose of the imposition of dumping duties is that the prices of the dumped imported products are raised in order to arrive at a non-injurious price level, which price level has been established in the course of the investigation. Consequently, the duties should result in higher resale prices on the Community market.

2. The Commission is not aware of the price reduction by Swedish Match as referred to by the Honourable Member and since the adoption of the Regulation referred to above, has not received any complaint in this respect.

3. The so-called "unfair" commercial behaviour attributed to Swedish Match by the Honourable Member might be the subject of an investigation under the competition rules of the EC Treaty only if a firm in a dominant position was suspected of predatory pricing practices, according to case law of the Court of justice (judgement of 3 July 1991, AKZO Chemie v. Commission) that is to say, prices below average variable costs (that is to say, those which vary depending on the quantities produced) by means of which a dominant undertaking seeks to eliminate a competitor, or even prices higher than average variable costs but lower than average total costs if they were established within the framework of a plan having the aim of eliminating a competitor.

In the present case the Commission does not have sufficient information at its disposal to envisage opening a procedure.

(1) OJ L 284, 16.10.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2587/98

by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) to the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Subject: Advertising for automobiles and motorcycles

According to a report in a leading German newspaper, the Commission has drawn up a proposal to restrict automobile and motorcycle advertising on the grounds that such forms of transport are dangerous, as evidenced by the large number of accidents involving them.

1. Is this true or is it a typical piece of disinformation by the anti-European lobby?

2. If the report is true, what is the justification for this proposal which threatens to undermine economic freedom and would really be only a further step towards a socialist bureaucracy?

3. What action will the Commission take to prevent further outbreaks of dirigistic lunacy?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission has absolutely no intention of introducing a ban on car advertising as erroneously reported in some German newspapers.

In several Member States voluntary codes of conduct are applied which encourage advertising agencies and their customers, the car industry, to limit advertisements that could be considered to be linked to dangerous behaviour on the road. Various public discussions about the possibilities of applying such a voluntary code throughout Europe may have led to misunderstanding on the part of some journalists, particularly those who did not take the trouble to make enquiries to various voluntary organisations, public authorities and the Commission before writing their stories.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3208/98

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: BSE in Portugal

At its meeting of 7 October 1998 the Commission announced that a special plan to combat BSE in Portugal will be introduced shortly. The feeling in Portugal is that the Commission's reaction is out of proportion, considering that Spain, which has imposed an embargo on Portuguese beef exports, appears to have refused to allow any mission of Community specialists on its territory.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the state of affairs now identified in Portugal by the most recent mission of specialists more serious or less serious than that identified by the mission sent in May?

2. In view of the geographical position of Spain and the nature of some of its production systems for milk and meat, how many missions has the Commission sent to Spain recently, and what were their conclusions?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

Since the mission in May 1998, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) situation in Portugal has deteriorated. In 1997, 30 confirmed cases of BSE were notified to the Commission. In 1998, 17 confirmed BSE cases were notified in the months January to April, and a further 49 confirmed BSE cases were notified until 16 October 1998. On 2 October 1998, the last day of the follow-up mission to Portugal, 28 brains were awaiting laboratory examination. For 10 of these brains the examination was finalised, hence, at least 18 brains are still awaiting laboratory examination.

Three BSE related missions to Spain have been carried out so far. One was at the end of 1996, concerning general protective measures for BSE, one in autumn 1997 as a follow up of the previous mission, in particular concerning BSE surveillance and the implementation of Commission Decision 96/449/EC of 18 July 1996 on the approval of alternative heat treatment systems for processing animal waste with a view to the inactivation of spongiform encephalopathy agents(1) and finally, one mission in September 1998, covering Commission Decisions 96/449/EC, 97/735/EC of 21 October 1997 concerning certain protection measures with regard to trade in certain types of mammalian animal waste(2) and the BSE surveillance results. A new mission is planned in the first part of 1999 on the implementation of Commission Decision 98/272/EC of 23 April 1998 on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC(3) concerning epidemio-surveillance of transmissible spongiform encaphalopathies (TSEs).

Following the first two missions, in general it was concluded that some of the decisions have been implemented with some delay. The report of the last mission in September 1998 is being drafted and once finalised it will be sent to the Parliament and will be published on the Commission web-site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/).

(1) OJ L 184, 24.7.1996.

(2) OJ L 294, 28.10.1997.

(3) OJ L 122, 24.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2483/98

by Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Free movement of goods - Hungary

On 1 February 1994 the Association Agreement between the European Union and Hungary came into effect; it provides for the application, on a reciprocal basis, of the provisions of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty concerning the free movement of goods.

Is the Commission aware that Hungary is nonetheless prohibiting the sale of food products which are legitimately manufactured and marketed within the Community, namely energy drinks, and is invoking "mandatory requirements" in connection with this measure, while being unable to cite reservations on health grounds?

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the provisions of the Association Agreement with Hungary concerning the free movement of goods are applied?

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

(1 October 1998)

While the Europe agreement with Hungary came into effect on 1 February 1994, the trade related part of the agreement was already put into effect on 1 March 1992 as an interim agreement.

The Commission is well aware that Hungary prohibits the sale of an energy drink which is legitimately manufactured and marketed within the Community and which had been marketed in Hungary for six years. The Hungarian authorities rely on article 35 of the Europe agreement permitting the prohibition of imports for public health reasons, and claim that the high content of caffeine, taurine and certain vitamins could cause harm to human health. Therefore, they called for the content to be lowered before renewing the permission for sale and marketing of this product.

The Commission does not share this opinion since the energy drink is not harmful for public health and such decrease of the content of caffeine, taurine and certain vitamins would change the product substantially. This issue was already discussed several times with the Hungarian authorities both in the institutional framework of the Europe agreement (association committee and various sub-committee meetings) and in other contacts. Despite the Commission's several requests to remove this trade barrier, the Hungarian authorities have neither renewed the permission for the import and marketing of this product nor provided the Commission with the scientific evidence for this prohibition. The Commission will continue to follow this issue closely and request the removal of this trade barrier.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2618/98

by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Team Europe

What is the annual budget for the Commission's Team Europe information activities? Can the Commission account for the content of the estimate of expenditure for Team Europe?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The global annual budget for Team Europe according to the contract with Deloitte and Touche as approved by the Commission is ECU 956 413. This covers the running of the Team Europe information service. However, as the contractor is only being paid for actual expenses, the budget for 1997-1998 is just above ECU 670 000. A copy of the contract with Deloitte and Touche for support to the members of Team Europe is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The Team Europe 1997 activity questionnaire gives a very good picture of the members' activities and which audiences they reach. In 1997, the members of Team Europe were in direct live contact with over 300 000 people, who had the opportunity to question them and receive answers about Community policy. The report together with a summary is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

Finally, Team Europe has just undergone an external evaluation and the Commission is awaiting the evaluation report, which naturally will be available to the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/98

by Kenneth Collins (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Access to justice

Bearing in mind the recent court judgment in Case C321/95P Greenpeace and others v Commission where:

1. the Court of First Instance maintained a rigid interpretation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty,

2. and which the Court of Justice in its subsequent ruling of 2 April found that the Commission's action in this case affected public participation rights only indirectly, and that such rights can be protected at national level,

3. which implies that the Community's citizens are unable to challenge infringements of Community law unless it has a direct effect upon them,

can the Commission indicate what action is being taken to fill the legal vacuum created by Article 173 and when the citizens of the European Community may expect to be able to enjoy the right of access to justice in the context of Community law

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2607/98 and E-2688/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The conditions of admissibility of actions brought by individuals to have Parliament and Council instruments, Council instruments, or Commission instruments annulled are governed by the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would point out that this legal remedy is available not only to the Member States and the other institutions, but also to individuals who are directly and individually concerned. Consequently, there is no legal vacuum here.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Written question E-606/97 by Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra(1).

In its report on certain aspects of the application of the Treaty on European Union, drawn up at the request of the Corfu European Council on 24 and 25 June 1994 in preparation for the intergovernmental conference intended to revise the treaties, the Court said that "it may be asked ... whether the right to bring an action for annulment under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (and the corresponding provisions of the other Treaties), which individuals enjoy only in regard to acts of direct and individual concern to them, is sufficient to guarantee for them effective judicial protection against possible infringements of their fundamental rights arising from the legislative activity of the institutions" (point 20 of the report). The intergovernmental conference which adopted the Treaty of Amsterdam discussed the matter, but the provision in question was not amended on this point by the Amsterdam Treaty.

(1) OJ C 367, 4.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3161/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(12 October 1998)

Subject: Video games and protection of the rights of citizen and political leader Silvio Berlusconi

Is the Commission aware that in many amusement arcades for young people there is an Austrian-made video game (Photo Play 2000 Trivial Pursuit - Fun World - Brunnenweg, A - 4810 Gmunden, Austria ) in which players have to answer questions, one of which is: "Who was the first Italian crook to be arrested in the notorious bribes scandal known as Tangentopoli?", there being a choice of three replies: Silvio Berlusconi, Bettino Craxi, or Mario Chiesa (the correct reply)?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to withdraw from the market a game which suggests to young people that the leader of the opposition in Italy might be a crook arrested for political corruption?

Does the Commission not believe that there has been an infringement of the rights of European citizen and politician, Silvio Berlusconi, whose political strength is represented in the European Parliament by the largest Italian delegation?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/98

by Antoinette Spaak (ELDR) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Use of languages in the Institutions of the European Union

1. What was in the past, and what is at present, the number of pages produced in the original in a language of the European Union, and in which languages were/are they sent for translation?

2. What is the position of the European institutions, in the light of enlargement, as far as languages are concerned?

Reply

(3 November 1998)

1. As regards the Council, the Language Service of the General Secretariat has detailed statistics on the origin and number of documents sent for translation since 1993. The number of original pages produced and their breakdown into languages are given in the table below.

2. All standard documents, which are subject to general distribution, are in principle translated into all the other official languages. Documents not for general dissemination (working documents, staff notes, preparatory documents, administrative documents, etc.) are not always translated into all the languages, depending on the needs of the addressee, without this practice prejudging the language arrangements laid down, in particular in Regulation No 1.

3. As regards enlargement, the Council's position on languages will be decided upon during negotiations with the applicant States.

Number of pages produced by the Council General Secretariat

>TABLE>