ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3922/97 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Pesticide movements

The Commission's policy on pesticides is unclear. The European Parliament is not in a position to monitor movements of pesticides (in terms of quantity or quality) sold or provided under the policies of DG I, III and VIII in particular. The calls for tender put out by these directorates-general are often not drawn up with the desired technical precision to guarantee transport, handling, storage and use under satisfactory conditions.

Does the Commission call on consultancies, independent experts or universities, or does it intend to do so, in respect of the purchase of pesticides, given the complex nature of the technical specifications which must be used to define the subject of the tender, draw up a proper technical annex, study the tenders, check the quality and conformity of the purchases and supervise the storage, application and management of residues in the country of destination, in particular in the case of grants or other types of aid from the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

Two years ago, the Commission launched an initiative to examine its tender procedures for pesticide supply together with options for promoting an integrated pest management approach (IPM). Two documents, i) progressive pest management and ii) the latest tender document which was used recently in Rwanda, are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The initiative on progressive pest management represents the first results of a study carried out to address the problems of pesticides in the wider sense and the implementation of an integrated pest management approach which will gradually be introduced into agricultural projects and programmes.

The tender dossier recently used in Rwanda for the procurement of pesticides in the coffee sector is the result of discussions and consultations and represents a significant tightening up of the Commission procedures in this area. This document is in the process of being further modified to take into account the additional concern about the toxicity of the solvents used in pesticide formulation. It will also contain a fuller proposition for the training of pesticide users in the field.

Pesticide producers have favourably received the Rwanda tender dossier and have also been involved indirectly in the discussions on pesticide control and IPM. It is now the intention of the Commission to formulate an official Commission approach both on pesticide procurement and IPM by the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3851/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Freedom of religion in Morocco

In answer to my Written Question E-3136/97 ((OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 154. )) the Commission stated that it was not in a position to confirm reports of the illegal expulsion of two Christians from Morocco. Nonetheless, various organizations including

the 'Jubilee Campaign', 'Open Doors' and the American news service 'Compass Direct' have specifically confirmed the event. The organization 'Jubilee Campaign' has even drawn my attention to a third case of arrest and expulsion. It concerns an Egyptian Christian, Tharwat Yousef Malek Khali, who was expelled from Morocco on 30 March 1997 because he had sought out other foreign Christians to hold services of prayer with them.

1. Can the Commission indicate how it checked the reports on Morocco and why it cannot confirm the cases referred to above when three independent organizations are able to do so?

2. Will the Commission make enquiries of the Moroccan authorities concerning the two cases previously raised and the third case of Tharwat Yousef Malek and will it urge the authorities to protect the rights of these people and to guarantee that they can return without hindrance?

3. Will the Commission convey to the Moroccan authorities the concern about the fact that Christians are being arrested and expelled without trial and in conflict with Moroccan legislation and fundamental human rights?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (16 January 1998)

The Commission notes the additional reports referred to by the Honourable Member concerning the practice of Christianity in Morocco.

For information concerning what action the Council and the Commission can take in this respect, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to written question E-1759/96 from Mr van der Waal ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4135/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Russian decision to exclude a number of products from the T.I.R. system

Russia has removed a large number of products from the T.I.R. transit scheme which, in any case, could not be transported to that country under T.I.R. documentation. The Russian Federation's State Customs Committee has notified the International Road Transport Union (IRU) of Decree No 513 banning the transit on its territory of a number of goods under T.I.R. documentation. These goods include, in particular, Community products such as barley beer, sugar, confectionery, butter and other milk-based fats, chocolate, pharmaceuticals, computers, videos, televisions, means of transport, etc.

The repercussions are considerable both for European products and European hauliers. The Russian decision entails a particular loss of business for hauliers in the peripheral countries of the Union such as Greece, as opportunities were open to Greek firms to transport a number of Community products from other countries to Russia which have now been completely eliminated.

How will the Commission respond to the Russian authorities' decision in order to safeguard the interests of Community hauliers and ensure that they are competing on fair terms with their counterparts in other European countries which are asking for the Union's financial and moral support?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member in respect of the Order No 513 of the Russian State customs committee, requiring separate guarantee arrangements to be made, outside that provided within the international carriage of goods by road (TIR) Convention, 1975, for a range of 20 categories of goods. The Commission recognises the serious effect such action would have on Community exporters and transport operators, and the potential threat to the future of this regime, essential to international commerce.

The Commission reacted very quickly in all sectors concerned through direct contacts with the Russian State customs committee, and through other transport and trade connections. Furthermore the issue was pursued by the Commission in the appropriate Economic commission for Europe meetings in Geneva.

The implementation of Order No 513 has since been deferred until 1 April 1998. The Commission is continuing its dialogue with the Russian side and others involved at all appropriate levels to secure its permanent withdrawal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4172/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Cohesion policy and culture

In its communication COM(96) 512 final, Cohesion Policy and Culture: A contribution to employment (more precisely on page 3 of the introduction), the Commission refers to the varied nature of 'culture' without managing to convey in what this variety consists.

Can the Commission state what activities are covered by the term 'culture' in the context of cohesion policy?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The communication explains in its introduction the diversity of 'culture' as follows:

'The cultural sector is characterised by growing close and varied inter-relations between cultural life (public cultural and social institutions: theatres, museums, arts centres; historical urban/rural sites, arts and music schools etc.) and the cultural economy (music, arts, literature and books, film, television and video production, photography, design, visual and entertainment arts, architecture, crafts and trade, protection of historical monuments, tourism)'.

In the context of cohesion policy, the communication emphasises that 'culture is not merely a public occupation creating extra costs but also an increasingly important part of the private economy with considerable growth potential fostering creative, innovative and productive effects for local and regional economies'. The examples given in the communication illustrate this.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4202/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000 and Objective 1: funds received 1993-1997

At the end of November the Director-General of Regional Policy and Cohesion, Eneko Landäburu, suggested, in the presence of press representatives, that 11 European regions, including Valencia (Spain), were to lose their Objective 1 status under the terms of the Commission proposals to reduce the Structural Funds before the accession of new Member States.

Mr Landäburu's calculations were based on the provisional data currently available to the Commission. However, in the specific case of Valencia, official Eurostat statistics show that, in 1993, the Valencia Autonomous Community's GDP was 74.9% of the European average and that, in 1994, the figure was even lower (73.6%). The threshold for Objective 1 eligibility is 75%, hence there are no grounds for supposing that Valencia is going to fail the eligibility test in the near future.

Should the average income of the various regions during the 1993-1997 period be taken as the criterion for calculating GDP, it is important that the macro-economic data for each region should be known for all of the years concerned.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, how much did the following regions receive by way of ERDF Objective 1 funds:

- Anatolia, Macedonia, Thessaly, Crete, Pelopennese, Central Greece, Ipiros, Attica, Ionian Islands, Aegean, Sterea (Greece)

- Hainaut (Belgium)

- Thuringia, Brandenburg, East Berlin, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Munster (Germany)

- Galicia, Extremadura, Castilla la Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Ceuta and Melilla, Valencia Autonomous Community, Asturias, Andalusia, Canary Islands, Murcia (Spain)

- Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Overseas Departments (France)

- Ulster, Connaught, Leinster (Ireland)

- Molise, Apulia, Sicily, Basilicata, Sardinia, Calabria, Campania (Italy)

- Flevoland (Netherlands)

- Burgerland (Austria)

- Northern Region, Alentejo, Algarve, Lisbon, Tagus Valley, Central Region (Portugal)

- Western Isles, Highlands, Merseyside, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4202/97 and E-4203/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Decentralization of Parliament's activities

The Court of Justice of the European Communities found in France's favour that the European Parliament should hold 12 part-session weeks per year in Strasbourg. This decision was taken in spite of Parliament's known opposition and is based on an interpretation of the decisions of the Council of Ministers.

The European Union was originally founded as a group of six countries which decentralized its activities to different parts of its territory, to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. Now, however, the Union has enlarged to include 15 Member States, and still more members will join in future. Under present-day conditions then, this decentralization, which is very costly to the taxpayer, is no decentralization at all but - to an even greater degree - a centralization.

What action does the Commission propose to take with a view to bringing about either a decision in principle that all MEPs work should be carried on in one place (i.e. Brussels) or a proper decentralization reflecting the EU's current composition? For example, the Northern dimension might be taken into account by building a debating chamber for Parliament in Oulu (northern Finland) for a few part-sessions a year, and this alternative would be just as sensible as the current practice.

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

The matters referred to by the Honourable Member do not fall within the competence of the Commission. The seat of the Parliament was fixed by the governements of the Member States at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992. This decision has recently been confirmed by the decision of the Court of justice referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: German canal levies

In its communication on Intermodality and intermodal freight transport in the European Union, the Commission refers to the expected increase in freight transport and says that 'in order to achieve socio-economic and environmental sustainability, the efficient and balanced use of existing capacities throughout the European transport system has become a key challenge'. In view of congestion on the roads and the external effects of road transport, this means promoting freight transport by waterway and rail.

1. In this context, is the Commission aware that so-called 'Abgaben' are levied on German canals, increasing inland waterway freight transport costs by between 10 and 30% and significantly worsening the competitive position of inland waterway as opposed to road transport?

2. Are these levies compatible with European transport policy which promotes waterway transport?

3. If not, what action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)

The Commission's Green Paper 'Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport' ((COM(95) 691 final. )), which was published in 1995, contained a section on infrastructure charging. In the debate which followed the publication of the Green Paper, it became clear that there is a lack of information regarding charging for waterway infrastructure in the Community. For this reason, the Commission recently sent a questionnaire to each Member State on this topic, in order to obtain a clearer picture of current practices, the principles upon which waterway charges are based and plans at Member State or regional level regarding such charges in the future.

The Commission has just begun work on a White Paper on infrastructure charging from a multimodal perspective which should appear in 1998. Inland navigation will be considered in that document as well other modes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3360/97 by Brian Crowley (UPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Work permits for flight crew

Could the Commission report on what steps, if any, it intends to take to halt the practice whereby temporary work permits for non-European Union flight crew are issued on a repetitive basis to the same operator by the Irish authorities, thus circumventing European Union training and employment policy?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

This issuing of work permits to third country nationals is currently regulated by national legislation of the Member States. Naturally the issuing of a work permit to nationals of a third country by one Member State does not oblige another Member State to recognise its validity for mobility within the European single market.

However, under existing Community legislation, Community air carriers employing or using such third country nationals under a 'wet-lease' arrangement can avail themselves of the freedom to operate air services under the Community's third package of air transport liberalisation measures, and other Member States cannot restrict that freedom on grounds of the nationality of the flight crews.

Nevertheless, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 ((OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. )) makes it very clear that air carriers that employ such staff must ensure that, at all times, they are technically qualified and that all safety rules must be observed.

Given these provisions to ensure that high safety standards are maintained, and in the absence of any indication of an adverse impact upon safety, the Commission has no plans to propose legislation on this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3865/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline

The opening of the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline is a historical milestone for Andalusian industry. This link could usefully be incorporated in the European Energy Charter, in the interests of greater geopolitical stability in the region's economic relations.

What action is the Commission in a position to take to incorporate this aspect into the European Energy Charter?

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

The Energy Charter Treaty is a legally binding instrument, which imposes obligations on governments to protect foreign investment and to ensure open trade in energy materials and products. It does not contain any reference to a particular project. It would not, therefore, be possible to make a reference to the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline in the Energy Charter Treaty.

Nevertheless, the Commission considers the Energy Charter Treaty as a point of reference for its Mediterranean policy. Consequently, in November 1996, the Commission organized a briefing session on the Energy Charter Treaty for the Mediterranean countries.

The countries of the Maghreb have participated from the very beginning as observers during the negotiations of the Energy Charter Treaty. To date, none of them has become a contracting party to the Energy Charter Treaty, but they have observer status in the Energy Charter Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3394/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (23 October 1997)

Subject: Wind farms

Can the Commission confirm whether there is any truth in the rumour that there will be no new wind farms created within the EU?

If this is the case, can the Commission comment on why such a decision has been taken?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1997)

The Commission is unaware of any decision in the Member States to block the construction of wind farms or the development of that form of renewable energy.

Indeed, it has information from specialist circles pointing to a generally optimistic assessment of the prospects for the medium and long-term growth of wind energy within the Community.

The Commission is of the opinion that renewable energy sources, including wind energy, are insufficiently exploited in the Community. The Community provides support for promotion of renewable sources of energy, for instance in the framework of the Altener and Joule-Thermie programmes, but the Commission is convinced that renewable energy represents a significantly under-exploited energy potential. It therefore intends to step up its efforts in this area, in order to meet the indicative objective of doubling the contribution from renewable sources of energy between now and 2010, as outlined in its recent white paper 'Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy - a strategy and action plan'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/97 by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: UK import limits on products originating in the Canaries

The British Government's Medicines Control Agency has informed that country's importers that the Canary Islands do not belong to the European Union. For that reason, a series of measures have been established in the UK limiting parallel imports of pharmaceutical products from the Islands.

This outrageous state of affairs constitutes an assault on the Canary Islands community's exercise of Community freedoms within the European Union, and any other EU territories.

Is the Commission aware of the facts in question?

What measures does the Commission intend to take with regard to this infringement of the principle of freedom of movement of goods between territories which belong to the EU on an equal footing?

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

Before the facts referred to by the Honourable Member can be assessed, it is necessary to know the reasons why the Medicines Control Agency refused to allow parallel imports of pharmaceutical specialities from another Member State to be marketed in the United Kingdom.

If the Agency's refusal is based on tax considerations, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-1956/93 by Mr Sanchez Garcia ((OJ C 219, 8.8.1994. )).

If the reasons given do not relate to tax and given that the Canary Islands form part of the customs territory of the Community, a refusal by the United Kingdom authorities to allow imports of pharmaceutical products might be regarded as an obstacle to intra-Community trade that is in breach of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

Before looking into the matter more closely, the Commission would like to have more detailed information regarding the reasons for the refusal. It would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact it in order to clarify the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4224/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Genetic modifications

On the contemporary scientific scene genetic research and its findings are among the most exciting achievements of the century.

Unfortunately the lack of regulation leads to irresponsible use of this scientific development, causing serious health and ethical problems which can no longer be ignored or underestimated. The first of these is the possibility of future genetic damage caused by couples who, unaware of their shared genetic heritage, may give birth to children with certain genetic abnormalities.

Does the Commission not consider:

1. that it would be useful and appropriate to propose rules making strict health checks on donors of semen compulsory;

2. that it is essential to establish a maximum number of eggs to be fertilized by the same donor's semen, in order to limit the risks of inter-breeding between blood-relations?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

Recourse to legislation on the issues raised in the question is a matter for the Member States.

In the context of its research work into biomedical ethics, the Biomedicine and Health Research Programme (Biomed) has funded a series of seminars on the ethical aspects of the donation of gametes. The question of limiting the number of births per donor has been discussed in this context.

Codes of practice exist at national level in certain Member States and at the centres responsible for gamete donation, but the Community has no powers in this domain.