ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4091/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council

(15 January 1999)

Subject: European coordination of defence industries

The approach of NATO's fiftieth anniversary is being accompanied by a succession of studies into the major changes which have occurred on the international scene during the 50 years of NATO's existence and the need for an agreement concerning tasks and challenges for the future. The differences in the political views held by America and Europe may become more accentuated if ways are not found of establishing cooperation between the defence industries on either side of the Atlantic with a view to developing the new technology of the 21st century.

Does the Council believe that the European defence industry will soon achieve a sufficient size and degree of coordination capability to allow constructive dialogue with the highly integrated industry in the USA? In this connection, what would be the effect of the differences in legal status which exist between the major defence companies of Germany and the United Kingdom, which are privately owned, and those in France, which are mainly in the public sector?

Reply

(22 April 1999)

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, the ad hoc Group on the European Armaments Policy (POLARM) was established in 1995 to address issues related to the European armaments policy and to submit recommendations to the Council on the possible follow-up both by measures taken in the Community framework and according to Title V of the EU-Treaty. Furthermore, the future Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union states that "the progressive framing of a common defence policy will be supported, as Member States consider appropriate, by cooperation between them in the field of armaments."

The POLARM Group is currently examining a Communication by the Commission entitled "Implementing European Union strategy on defence-related industries". This Communication includes both a Plan of Action for defence industries and a proposal for a Common Position on drawing up a European armaments policy.

As to the Honourable Member's last question, the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership do not fall within the remit of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3898/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Ethnic bomb

In the light of recent reports from South Africa and Israel concerning the possible development of biological weapons capable of targeting victims by ethnic or racial origin.

Would the Commission please confirm:

1. that no EU funding is being used either directly or indirectly for any such research?

2. that no such research is being carried out in EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

The Commission can confirm that no Community funding is either directly or indirectly being used for the research mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware of any such research being carried out in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4047/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Misuse in France of Factor VIII blood products

Following the misuse in France of Factor VIII blood products which have resulted in medical patients developing both AIDS and hepatitis.

Is the Commission able to state please:

1. The percentage proportion of haemophiliacs who have developed either AIDS or hepatitis in each Member State?

2. Which Member States have made provision for haemophiliac screening and mandatory compensation schemes for prospective victims?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

Epidemiological surveillance of AIDS in Europe is carried out with financial support from the Commission under the programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases (1996-2000)(1). The European Centre for Epidemiological Monitoring of AIDS (CESES) publishes a detailed quarterly report on the most recent data transmitted by the national monitoring centres. The number of AIDS cases declared is available by Member State, year, sex, age and transmission group. Between the start of the epidemic and June 1998, 195 785 cases of AIDS were declared in the Community, 3 266 (1,67 %) of them involving haemophiliacs. In 1996 and 1997 this percentage was 0,71 %. The Commission will send the most recent CESES report to the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat.

At the moment, the Commission does not have any data on the percentage of haemophiliacs who have developed hepatitis in each Member State. On 24 September 1998 the Council and Parliament adopted a Decision(2) setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community. This network will permit epidemiological surveillance of a number of priority diseases in Europe. It will include an early warning system allowing a rapid and appropriate response at European level in the event of a recognised threat to public health. Epidemiological surveillance of hepatitis in Europe will be one of the network's priorities.

The organisation of screening for these diseases is the responsibility of the Member States. At the Commission's initiative, a study of the different aspects of screening for the human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) is being undertaken and will be available during the second quarter of 1999.

As regards compensation, several Member States have specific schemes to help persons who have become infected through transfusion of a defective blood product, responsibility for which lies with the Member States.

(1) Decision 647/96/EC of 29 March 1996, OJ C 95, 16.4.1996.

(2) Decision 2119/98/EC of 24 September 1998, OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3612/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Recognition of Protected Designation of Origin and (DOP) Geographical Indication of Origin (IGP) for balsamic vinegar

The Commission is currently considering the request made by the competent Italian authorities in recent months for recognition of the DOP of traditional balsamic vinegar from Modena and balsamic vinegar from Reggio Emilia and the IGP of balsamic vinegar from Modena.

Recognition is of vital importance for the protection and valorisation of quality products with unique characteristics.

The Commission:

1. What is it's reaction to the request?

2. When does it intend to grant recognition of DOP and IGP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

In January 1994, in accordance with Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), the Italian Government notified the Commission of the names either legally protected at national level or consecrated by use which it wished to have registered as protected designations of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs).

The names legally protected at national level included "aceto balsamico and aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena e Reggio Emilia", whose registration as a PDO was requested. However, the specification initially sent to the Commission showed that there were three different products: "aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena", "aceto balsamico tradizionale di Reggio Emilia" and "aceto balsamico di Modena". The Commission therefore embarked on a voluminous correspondence with the Italian Government on this subject, which resulted in 1998 in the Italian Government asking for the initial application for registration to be split into three separate applications, one for each of the products concerned.

The Commission now has to decide on each of the three applications submitted, on the basis of the criteria set out in Regulation (EEC) 2081/92. It is fully aware of these products' importance, and of the fact that the promotion of products with certain characteristics can be of enormous benefit to rural areas. Provided the applications for registration meet the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) 2081/92, the names of these products will be proposed for registration in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4113/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Food hygiene: application of Directive 93/43 EEC

Is the Commission aware of problems in the application of Directive 93/43 EEC(1) arising from the lack of power given to port health authorities to board ships and aircraft for the purpose of inspecting and verifying that food hygiene rules have been complied with? If it is necessary to board ships and aircraft in order to verify compliance with the Directive, is it not incumbent upon Member States to grant the necessary powers to the appropriate health inspection authorities?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The hygiene and foodstuffs Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 applies to food business operators engaged in a wide range of activities including preparation, processing, manufacturing, packaging, storing, transport, distribution, handling and offering for sale or supply of food.

It is incumbent on the authorities dealing with food control in each Member State under the provisions of Articles 2, 4 and 11 of the control of foodstuffs Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989(2), to ensure that businesses comply with all national and European measures that apply to foodstuffs through inspection, sampling, examinations of written records and other control activities.

The Member States must also ensure that inspectors have the necessary rights to carry out their activities to assess compliance. Reference is not made specifically in these legal texts to powers of entry, although one can assume that indeed it would be impossible to undertake enforcement activities in food businesses if access were not permitted.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4065/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(15 January 1999)

Subject: The Wassenaar regulations

The Wassenaar organisation, which continues the work carried out by COCOM during the Cold War, has decided to agree, in accordance with the interests of the USA and its secret services, that the export of confidential technology should be subject to restrictions. This decision infringes the principle of the freedom to purchase services within the EU. How will the regulation on the licensing of exports of confidential technology agreed at Wassenaar be prepared in the EU? On what legal basis does the Council justify approving this kind of restriction on free trade?

Reply

(22 April 1999)

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, all Member States are participating in the Wassenaar arrangement. This export control regime responds to the need of ensuring that appropriate export controls are applied by the participating countries to transfers of dual-use items and related military technology.

The commitments of Member States under the Wassenaar arrangement, as well as under the other export control regimes, are transposed into an integrated EU system consisting of Regulation (CE) 3381/94 of 19 December 1994 (legal basis Article 113 of the EC-Treaty) and of Council Decision 94/942/CFSP of 19 December 1994 (legal basis Article J.3 of the EU-Treaty) for CFSP aspects.

Modifications to the relevant lists, agreed in the Wassenaar framework, are incorporated, in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaty, into the European Union's dual-use regime.

The Commission recently submitted a proposal for a Council Regulation (EC), based exclusively on Article 113, which would amend, update and complete the Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods and technology. This proposal is currently being examined within the Council.
91998E3887

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3887/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Application procedure for NGO funding



Official Journal C 297 , 15/10/1999 P. 0111
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/98

by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Direct payments to farmers

Will the Commission explain what the consequences are, in legal terms, of implementing the proposal for a regulation (COM(98) 0158 - CNS 98/0113(1)) concerning direct payments to farmers under support schemes forming part of the common agricultural policy, which are paid in full or in part from the EAGGF, Guarantee Section?

Could the Commission provide in its explanation an assessment of the legal position of the individual farmer, particularly in regard to administrative decisions, the reversal of the burden of proof and proportionality in laying down penalties?

Could the Commission also provide an assessment of the discrimination that may arise from countries being able to introduce different rules on compliance with national environmental provisions, including the enforcement of those rules? Will it also assess the problems associated with the overall control of agricultural expenditure and reconciliation of the accounts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

The proposed Council Regulation in question would set some common rules applying to direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy. The purpose of the rules is better integration of environmental objectives into the CAP, more fairness in its application and greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public. These aims would be achieved through giving Member States wider powers that would leave more responsibility in their hands and facilitate adjustment of the measures laid down to the specific situation in each part of the Community. Since the proposal is at the moment under discussion in Parliament and the Council, the Commission is unable to respond exhaustively to the Honourable Member's questions and will focus on two essential elements of it.

The Commission does not expect the environmental provisions of Article 3 to have any discriminatory impact. In fact it is in the first instance the diversity of environmental conditions in the Member States and the variability of national rules on environmental matters that are liable to affect equality of opportunity for farmers in the Community. The provisions proposed, accompanied as they are by Community application criteria, promise rather to help offset existing inequalities.

Article 8 on payment restriction is a means of confining aid to genuine farmers, i.e. those whose farming is not principally motivated by the existence of direct support schemes. It undoubtedly responds to the public's growing concern that agricultural aids be administered in a rigorously precise and effective way.

Lastly, Article 5 explicitly requires Member States to apply the provisions of Article 3 in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and avoid market and competition distortions.

(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998, p. 93.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3992/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Ban on antibiotics

The Commission is planning on the basis of scientific advice to ban the following four products:

- Zinc Bacitracin

- Virginiamycin

- Spiramycin

- Tylosin.

There is considerable concern that whilst this leaves European agriculture less competitive, these products may still be used in animals and birds reared in third countries and may continue to constitute a threat to public health if over-used.

Can the Commission explain what steps it will take to prevent the importation of meat and animals and birds receiving these antibiotics?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The Council meeting which took the decision to suspend the use for growth promotion of the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member also discussed the consequences on import from third countries of live animals and foodstuffs of animal origin.

The Council and the Commission recognised the importance of the external dimension of this dossier. They emphasised, in that respect, their joint resolve to ensure the protection of consumers' health, whilst complying with the Community's international commitments.

The outcome of that discussion was that the Commission was invited to present, before 30 June 1999, a report on the economic, legal, and public health implications of the antibiotics resistance issue with regard to the external dimension.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4016/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Display of imperial measurements

The 1989 Directive authorising firms to show both metric and imperial measurements together is due to expire at the end of 1999. The display of imperial measurements is particularly important for firms trading with the United States and former British colonies such as South Africa, Australia and the Indian subcontinent. Is the Commission aware of the importance of extending the provision for imperial measurements to be shown alongside metric measurements? If so, can it give some indication of when it will publish a draft directive authorising the continuation of this practice?

Is the Commission aware that, with only twelve months to go before the existing Directive expires, there is considerable urgency for firms needing to plan production schedules and advertising materials during the next twelve months?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

The directive on units of measurement 80/181/EEC(1), as last amended by Directive 89/617/EEC(2), deals with requirements for the internal market. It requires that indications of quantities be made in legal units - in principle those of the SI (International System, the modernised metric system)- which, however, can be accompanied by non-legal supplementary indications (Article 3, point 2). This provision, which was intended as an interim measure to facilitate a smooth changeover to metric, is due to expire 31 December 1999.

Products destined for third country markets are not affected by these requirements and an exporter who wishes to export to other markets can take the necessary measures to prepare products in Europe to meet the requirements of the territory of destination without fear of breaching any directive provision.

Notwithstanding this context, it has been brought to the attention of the Commission by the Member States and certain European manufacturers that products destined for global distribution, which currently fulfil the demands of divergent sets of legislation, could be affected by the coming into force of the metric only indication requirement for the European market. Consequently, the Commission has been requested to take account of this international trade aspect and to propose a prolongation of the use of supplementary indications.

The Commission decision to adopt a proposal to extend the supplementary indications provision is imminent and the timetable foreseen for the Council and Parliament procedures plans for the directive to be adopted by November 1999. In view of the understanding in principle that the relevant provision of the directive will be delayed for a further number of years, manufacturers will not have to make any changes to their production arrangements in the near future.

The Commission intends to use the transition period created by the directive amendment to actively pursue the issue of metric labelling with its trade partners in order to agree a permanent solution for products destined for the global market.

(1) OJ L 39, 15.2.1980.

(2) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3946/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Sustainable fishing

Has the Commission undertaken any evaluation of its funding policies for fishing with a view to rewarding environmentally sensitive fishing, for example, to offer incentives for environmental resource management and nature conservation activities, and to penalise commercial over-exploitation of dwindling fish stocks?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Under Structural Fund programmes, the Member States and the Commission share responsibility for evaluating the impact of Community financing, the rules on which are adopted by the Council, on the sectors and regions in question, including the fisheries sector. The Commission has also part-financed a number of scientific research projects covering the impact of aid on catch capacity and hence on resources. The projects in question are listed in the FAIR project catalogue(1) and include notably Nos 1454, 3541 and 3936.

The Commission can confirm that aid for modernisation must not run counter to resource conservation targets. Use of more selective gear and fishing methods is one of the essential eligibility criteria for Community aid.

Regulation of resource exploitation by means of TACs and catch quotas or restrictions on individual fishing grounds limits the overexploitation of stocks while favouring responsible fishing. Each Member State remains free moreover to set internal allocation rules and can gear them to maximum respect for resources and the environment.

Any infringement of these provisions of Community law is liable to result in penalisation under Article 169 of the Treaty. The Commission has moreover recently adopted a proposal(2) for a Council Regulation listing types of behaviour, including overfishing, that seriously infringe CFP rules. While this Regulation may not lead to Community-wide harmonisation of penalties imposed, it will result in greater transparency as regards enforcement of CFP rules.

(1) Project synopses. Volume VI: Fisheries & aquaculture (FAIR: 1994-1998).

(2) COM(99) 70 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: First aid for drivers

Has the Commission given any thought to the idea that training in first aid would be useful as part of a driving qualification?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1998)

Provisions relating to training in first aid as part of driving qualification are laid down in Annex II point 2 and 7 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences(1). Point 2.13 stipulates that "Drivers must be able to demonstrate a knowledge and sound understanding of general rules specifying how the driver must behave in the event of an accident (setting warning device and raising the alarm) and the measures which he can take to assist road accident victims where necessary". Point 7.2 stipulates that the content of the theoretical test concerning all vehicle categories must deal with point 2.13, "the content of the question being left to the discretion of each Member State" (point 7.2.1).

As this Directive only came into force on 1 July 1996, it would be premature to propose amendments until experience demonstrates whether the above provisions are satisfactory.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.