ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2627/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Minority languages and cultures: Community funding

The Commission is drawing up a proposal to provide a legal basis for a number of budget headings which lack such a basis and whose implementation has for that reason been suspended.

Could the Commission say which budget headings are involved and, in particular, whether they include heading B3-1006 on the promotion and protection of minority languages and cultures?

Could the Commission say what action it will take in respect of programmes which are currently being adopted, those which have already been adopted and those which are currently being implemented under budget heading B-1006 pending the final adoption of the appropriate legal basis?

Could the Commission provide information concerning the timetable for the adoption of the relevant proposal by the College of Commissioners and say what procedures and timescale will subsequently be followed when the proposal comes before Parliament and the Council?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The Commission confirms that it is planning to present Parliament and the Council with a proposal for a legal basis for activities currently financed under item B3-1006 (promotion and protection of minority languages and cultures). It is preparing a multiannual programme which should be adopted by the Commission before the end of 1998.

Regarding the 1998 budget, implementation of the measure was not prevented by the lack of a legal basis. About half the appropriations allocated to the measure had already been committed before 31 May following selection of a first set of projects. Selection of the second set of projects took place before 10 June, the date on which the Commission decided to suspend implementation of headings lacking a legal basis following the Court of Justice decision in Case C-106/96. The Commission considered that beneficiaries whose projects had been accepted at the time of the second selection had legitimate expectations; the project therefore continued to receive the subsidy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Fear of a crime wave involving the euro

1. Is the Council aware that European intelligence services fear an increase in crime when the euro is introduced?

2. What measures is the Council planning to take to ensure that nothing jeopardizes the security of the euro as legal tender?

3. Is the Council aware that a hologram plate designed to protect the new euro banknote against forgery disappeared without trace on a flight between Paris and Munich?

4. Can the Council give a guarantee that that hologram did not fall into the hands of a criminal organisation and that it cannot be misused?

5. In what way can the Council guarantee that the average European citizen will be able to differentiate between genuine and counterfeit euros?

Reply

(30 November 1998)

The Council would first of all recall its conclusions of 19 May 1998 in which it underlined the importance of the introduction of an effective system of protection throughout the Monetary Union, once euro notes and coins are introduced. Europol will have an important role to play in this field. The Council noted the work undertaken by the Commission to protect the Monetary Union and the euro. Both organisations will continue to cooperate closely with each other and with the European Central Bank, in compliance with the division of powers embodied in the Maastricht Treaty, to develop mechanisms for information exchange and other arrangements to ensure close and regular cooperation to prevent and combat counterfeiting, it being understood that the actual fight against counterfeit notes and coins belongs to Member States.

Since then, work at expert level has continued. As part of the wider brief to be conferred on it, Europol will support Member States' activities to prevent and combat counterfeiting, in particular counterfeiting of the euro, through improved exchange of information between the relevant authorities of the Member States and the pooling and centralised use of police intelligence. At the same time the ECB (which has sole power to issue euro bank notes) will concentrate on the technical prevention of counterfeiting.

The disappearance during transport of a test matrix for hologram production trials on 12 May 1998 will not affect the secure manufacture of euro bank notes. Immediately after the May incident, test matrixes with a completely different design were produced. Bank note prototypes are at present produced on the basis of these new matrixes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs

In the USA there has been a debate in recent months on a draft law from the USDA laying down rules governing the manufacture of organically farmed foodstuffs (USDA National Organic Program Proposal Rule). The USDA proposal allowed the use of genetic engineering in products derived from organic farming. It breached EU standards on 27 counts and the danger existed through the WTO, that genetically manipulated foodstuffs could end up on the European market having been declared as organic foods and could mislead consumers. In the meantime, this proposal has been withdrawn. It is nevertheless an example of how easily European standards can be undermined in the context of international trade.

1. Did the EU try in negotiations with the USA to modify this USDA proposal? If so, how?

2. Is a mutual recognition agreement between the USA and the EU planned for foodstuffs?

3. If so, on what standards is it to be based? Will the EU maintain its existing standards?

4. What value will be attached to environmental and consumer interests in the negotiations on the New Transatlantic Marketplace and/or the New Transatlantic Partnership (NTM and/or NTP)?

5. To what extent are foodstuffs to be included in the NTM and/or NTP?

6. What kind of agreements are envisaged for foodstuffs in the NTM and/or NTP?

7. What sanctions are contemplated?

8. Is the issue of genetically manipulated foodstuffs included?

9. What timescale does the Commission envisage for an NTM and/or NTP for foodstuffs?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2275/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Criminal financial assets

What steps is the Council planning to take to utilise the unique opportunity available to identify criminal financial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro?

Are there plans to enlarge Europol's remit to set up a financial unit to enable Europe-wide coordination and cooperation, particularly with regards to drug monies?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

Various Council working parties are currently examining the opportunities available to identify criminal financial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro, on the basis of suggestions by the Member States. The Austrian Presidency is at present preparing to take an initiative to ensure an adequate response to this problem by the adoption of provisions for the protection of the euro.

Europol is competent in respect of money laundering activities in connection with unlawful drug trafficking (Article 2(3) under 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2) Europol Convention). Moreover, within the framework of the implementation of the Action Plan against organised crime(1) (see Recommendation No 26), various initiatives are already under way to ensure that financial units set up in the Member States cooperate and coordinate in an appropriate manner. The Council has recently received the second report by the Commission on the implementation of the Directive on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering(2) and intends to take the necessary measures to follow up that report, inter alia to ensure that criminal assets are identified. Moreover, Council bodies are examining a proposal to extend Europol's remit to cover action to combat the forgery of money (including the euro).

(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.

(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3017/98

by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Council

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Israel's request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN

The State of Israel is the only one of the 185 Member States of the UN which cannot be elected to the Security Council. This is because the group of Asian States, to which Israel belongs geographically, ban it from joining their organization and the European Union countries have not yet responded to Israel's request to join the Western group.

The United States, Australia, Canada and Norway have already indicated that they are in favour.

What response does the Council intend to make to Israel's request?

Does it not consider that to approve the request would be a sign that it rightfully condemns the Asian group's discrimination against Israel?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The Council recalls that, in the EU's view, Israel geographically belongs to the Asian Regional Group. However, given that Israeli membership of the Asian Group is unfortunately not possible at present, it is right for the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) to be ready to recognise that difficulty by, on a case-by-case basis, supporting Israeli candidatures for elections in UN bodies where there are no WEOG candidates.

On the question of granting Israel temporary membership of WEOG, the EU's position remains that it would not be appropriate to take a decision to this effect. Furthermore, it should be noted that for this purpose agreement by the EU would not be enough as a consensus of all WEOG members would be required.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Data on fires in Greece

Pursuant to Regulation 308/97 on protection of the Community's forests against fire, the Member States forward data on the number, extent and duration of fires, etc. to the Commission's responsible departments.

This data is considered especially useful for monitoring and evaluating preventive and protective measures for forests in the Member States, as also indicated in the extremely interesting report entitled "Community system of information on forest fires 1985-87", published by the Commission's department responsible for forests.

With a view to enhancing the reliability of the data supplied by the Member States, can the Commission confirm that a uniform method is used to record the data concerning the number, extent and duration of the fires and the time-lapse between initial alarm and intervention etc.

Do the Member States notify the Commission's departments of any change in the manner of recording events?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the report on the Community system of information on forest fires 1985-1987(1).

The reliability of the data supplied by the Member States is guaranteed by Commission Regulation (EC) 804/94 of 11 April 1994 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) 2158/92 as regards forest-fire information systems(2), which details the set of information that Member States must transmit to the Commission each year under the Community forest-fire information system.

Any changes made by the Member States to their national data collection systems must comply with the conditions laid down in this Regulation.

(1) Not yet published.

(2) OJ L 93, 12.4.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2721/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Exclusion of the Moroccan dissident Ibrahim Serfaty

1. Is the Commission aware that the Moroccan Government has refused authorisation for Ibrahim Serfaty, a Moroccan dissident who was imprisoned for more than ten years in Morocco and who has been living in exile in France for the last seven years, to return to Morocco?

2. Is the Commission prepared to condemn the exclusion order issued by the Moroccan Government in 1991 and to ask it to allow Mr Serfaty to return to Morocco now and to confirm his civil rights in Morocco?

3. What measures does the Commission think it might be able to take, in connection with the signing of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements, if the Moroccan Government should persist in excluding Mr Serfaty from Morocco and refuse to acknowledge his civil rights in Morocco?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

1. In coordination with the Member States, the Commission is monitoring developments in the case.

2. The Commission cannot act alone in this matter: the rules laid down by the second pillar of the Treaty on European Union make it a matter for the Member States too.

3. The new Association Agreement between the Community and Morocco will enshrine a formal political dialogue with the Moroccan authorities on all issues of common interest. The Community will definitely be using this dialogue to put across its views on the Moroccan authorities' respect for democracy and human rights both generally and in specific cases. This dialogue between partners will be founded on the positive measures now getting under way. Community-funded schemes to promote democracy and human rights in Morocco include the introduction of democracy and human rights into the school syllabus, the creation of a chair in democracy and human rights at the law faculty in Rabat and support for Morocco's main non-governmental organisations specialising in this field. All this is part of a long-term strategy of dialogue and funding. Results will be regularly evaluated, notably to assess progress, before any thought is given to more drastic measures, such as suspending the Association Agreement in the event of a breach of the provisions on democracy and human rights that are among its essential elements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA)

The European press has on several occasions scrutinised the manner in which the Commission approaches matters relating to recruitment to the Commission itself and to the decentralised agencies under its supervision. It is an extremely serious issue which affects the public image of the entire EU and does not lend itself to "tongue-in-cheek" remarks as Commissioner Bjerregaard, who is normally quite a responsible person, suggested in her answer to my written question E-2566/98(1). Furthermore, particularly after the recent ludicrous events involving the annulment of competitions to recruit officials and the allegations of lack of transparency in recruitment procedures, one might expect a more serious approach to the whole matter from the Commission and the Commissioners.

Apart from the apparently rather ineffective "advice" which the Commission gives the EEA on its recruitment procedures, what practical measures does the Commission propose to take to eliminate the imbalance in the spread of nationalities among its officials and does it intend to ask the Executive Director of the EEA for full and detailed information whenever staff are to be recruited in order to avoid the exclusion of candidates from countries which are under-represented among the staff of the abovementioned bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Questions E-1007/98(2) and E-28/98(3)and to its answer to Written Question E-3236/97 by Mr Papayannakis(4). These explain that the Agency is an independent body under Council Regulation (EEC) 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European environment agency and the European environment information and observation network(5), and that the Commission has no competence in terms of personnel matters or recruitment to the Agency.

The Commission confirms that it will remind the executive director of the Honourable Member's concerns and will request a report from the management board of the Agency, with particular reference to how the proposed recruitment procedures will operate in 1999.

(1) See page 73.

(2) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 56.

(3) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 19.

(4) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.

(5) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2094/98

by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Pollution in the river Segura

The river Segura flows through three autonomous regions of Spain: Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia.

Industry, agriculture and tourism are chiefly to blame for the river's high pollution level, thus creating a further problem to add to that of the water's high salt content.

The number of waste discharges into the Segura exceeds 1500.

This situation as a whole poses a threat to the river itself, to the environment, and to the quality of life of the people living near the river.

Is the Commission aware of the current state of the quality of the water in the river Segura? If so, can it provide the relevant information? What measures has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, to combat the pollution level in the river Segura?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3167/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Safety checks on amusement park attractions

In its reply to Question H-0669/97(1) the Commission stated it had given a mandate to the European Standardization Organisations to draw up a European standard for technical specifications for fairground equipment. Has this now been done, and does the Commission not agree, that technical specifications are fine as far as they go, but the crux of the matter which needs to be addressed is minimum standards for regular inspection of these attractions to ensure safety is observed at all times?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

Work on the preparation of safety standards for amusement parks, under the mandate given to the European Standardisation Committee (CEN) by the Commission following the abandoning of plans for a directive taking account of the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council in 1992, is proceeding according to the timetable adopted by the CEN. An initial document will be presented to the national members of Technical Committee No 152 before the end of 1998. Owing to the procedures involved, the CEN does not expect its members (the national standardisation bodies) to vote formally to adopt the standards until 2000.

Various activities combine to ensure the safety of amusement parks, including regular inspections. For this reason an inspection procedure is currently included in the information annexes to the draft standards.

(1) European Parliament debates (September 1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/98

by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Code of conduct on arms control

Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat rifles.

Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the Commission taking on this issue?

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

(5 November 1998)

The Union's code of conduct on arms exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council of 8 June 1998. The code lists various criteria for Member States to take into account when selling military supplies to third countries. These criteria include compliance with the Member States' international undertakings and the human rights situation in the country of destination. However, the code of conduct is not an instrument of Community policy and cannot therefore, under the rules of the Treaty, be enforced by the Commission. Each Member State is accordingly responsible for interpreting the criteria listed in the code and assessing how they apply to its arms sales.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2247/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Cat welfare

Is there any EC legislation relating to animal welfare which addresses the breeding cycle of cats bred for laboratory purposes? What minimum "resting" periods are laid down for such animals and what housing conditions are stipulated for their welfare?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

Directive 86/609/EEC(1) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes sets minimum standards for the housing and care of animals.

Article 5 (a) states that "all experimental animals shall be provided with housing, an environment, at least some freedom of movement, food, water and care which are appropriate to their health and well-being". Article 5 further states that "For the implementation of the provision of paragraphs (a) and (b), Member States shall pay regard to the guidelines set out in Annex II".

Annex II of the Directive gives guidance for the accommodation and care of animals. These include guidelines on cage height, floor space and room temperature by groups of species, one of them being cats. In addition there are general guidelines on physical facilities, environment in the holding rooms and its control, and care of animals including topics such as health, feeding, water, bedding, exercise and handling, cleaning, and humane killing.

The Directive does not contain provisions for breeding cycles. However, Article 15 states that "Breeding and supplying establishments shall be approved by or registered with, the authority and comply with the requirements of Articles 5 and ...". Pursuant to this provision it is the responsibility of the national authorities to determine the criteria which breeding establishments have to meet in order to be approved or registered.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.