do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3439/97 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Parental leave for officials of the institutions
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: European Commission, European official, parental leave, proposal (EU), regulations for civil servants

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/165

(98/C 134/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3438/97

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: Health conditions in prisons

Having regard to other questions on the above subject tabled in the life of this and the previous Parliament, in the
light  of  the  deplorable  leptospirosis  deaths  at  San  Vittore  Prison  in  Milan  in  August  1997,  and  given  the
unspeakable health conditions in many prisons in Italy and the other Member States, will the Commission set up
a committee of inquiry to investigate prison living and health conditions?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1997)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national
authorities concerned.

(98/C 134/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3439/97

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: Parental leave for officials of the institutions

On 3 June 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/34/EC (1) on parental leave. Member States must comply with
this  directive  within  two  years.  It  is  obvious  that  the  institutions  will  adhere  to  the  legislation  which  they
themselves have drawn up. The time is approaching when a proposal for amendment of the Staff Regulations
applicable to officials of the institutions of the European Union must be submitted. When can Parliament expect
such a proposal?

(1)  OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1997)

The Staff Regulations of officials already contain provisions on leave for family reasons. Under Article 40 of the
Staff Regulations, officials may, in exceptional circumstances and at their own request, be granted unpaid leave
on personal grounds for a period of one year, which may be extended twice. If this leave is granted in order to
bring  up  small  children,  it  may  be  extended  four  times.  Commission  officials  do  take  advantage  of  this
possibility. Currently, out of 335 cases of leave on personal grounds, 89 have been granted to allow a parent to
bring up one or more small children.

How the right to parental leave could be included in the Staff Regulations is currently being looked at, and the
Commission may make a proposal on it within the more general framework of proposed improvements to the
Staff Regulations which the Commission intends to submit before the end of its term of office.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3429/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Growth promoting hormones
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, beef, health control, health risk, hormone, import restriction

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/125

3.

Can negotiations still take place in the WTO? If so, on what subject?

4. When will the final ruling be given by the WTO?

If the current WTO ruling were not changed and the EU continued to insist on the import ban on meat from

5.
cattle treated with hormones, what would be the consequences?

6.

Are penalty duties the only solution?

7. Who sets the level of the penalty duties or the compensation payments? Which countries will be granted
such compensation payments and on what basis?

(98/C 134/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/97

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: Growth promoting hormones

1. What arguments did the EU use to appeal against the WTO ruling?

2. What is the task of the WTO Appellate Body (seven members)? Can only legal aspects of the panel report
be the subject of appeals? What professional qualifications must these seven members have?

3.

Can negotiations still take place in the WTO? If so, on what subject?

4. When will the WTO give its final ruling?

5. What would happen if the previous WTO ruling was not changed and the EU continued to insist on the ban
on imports of meat from cattle treated with hormones?

6.

Are penalty duties the only solution?

7. Who then sets the level of the penalty duties? Which states will demand them and with what right?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-3248/97 and E-3429/97
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1997)

The Community has appealed from all the conclusions of the hormones panel report and most findings on

1.
which they are based. In particular, it argued that the panel has made serious errors in interpreting:

›  Article 5:1-5:2 of the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures of the World trade organisation
(WTO)  (SPS  agreement),  regarding  the  concepts  of  risk,  risk  assessment  and  the  related  question  of
appropriate level of sanitary protection;

›  Article 3:3 of the SPS agreement as regards the right of a WTO member when there is scientific justification
to adopt a higher level of sanitary protection than that which can be achieved by basing the measures on the
recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius commission;

›  Article 5:5 of the SPS agreement as imposing an obligation of consistency in the choice of levels of sanitary
protection with substances which are not toxins or contaminants, and with regard to substances which are not
the same and pose the same type of health risk to humans or animals as the growth hormones under dispute;

›  a  number  of  important  provisions  of  the  SPS  agreement  without  taking  into  proper  account  of  the
precautionary principle and against the panel’s decision placing exclusively on the Community rather than
on the complainants the burden of proving that these hormones pose no risk;
97/752/EC: Commission Decision of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 94/278/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which Member States authorize imports of certain products subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC as regards Iceland (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Iceland, fish product, health control, import, originating product, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 31997D0752 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31997D0752

97/752/EC: Commission Decision of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 94/278/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which Member States authorize imports of certain products subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC as regards Iceland (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 305 , 08/11/1997 P. 0069 - 0069 





COMMISSION DECISION of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 94/278/EC drawing up a list of third countries from which Member States authorize imports of certain products subject to Council Directive 92/118/EEC as regards Iceland (Text with EEA relevance) (97/752/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), as last amended by Directive 96/90/EC (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,Whereas imports of fish meal from Iceland are now governed by the provisions of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and whereas all decisions on the subject adopted prior to that Agreement should be repealed;Whereas in this connection Commission Decision 94/278/EC (3) must be amended, in particular by deleting Iceland from the list in Part II (B) of the Annex thereto;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 '(IS) Iceland` is hereby deleted from Part II (B) of the Annex to Decision 94/278/EC.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 31 October 1997.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 49.(2) OJ L 13, 16. 1. 1997, p. 24.(3) OJ L 120, 11. 5. 1994, p. 44.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3456/97 by Olivier DUHAMEL , Catherine LALUMIERE to the Commission. Allocation of PHARE funds for educational books
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: DUHAMEL, European Parliament, LALUMIERE
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, Slovakia, antisemitism, history of Europe, school textbook, withdrawal from the market, xenophobia

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/169

(98/C 102/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3303/97

by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 1997)

Subject: COM in bananas

Could the Commission provide details of the quantities of bananas signed every three months to each of the three
licensed  types  of  operator  for  the  last  three  years,  with  particular  information  concerning  operators  working
under licence B?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1997)

In  view  of  the  length  of  its  answer,  the  Commission  is  sending  it  direct  to  the  Honourable  Member  and  to
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 102/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3395/97

by Hugh Kerr (V) to the Commission

(23 October 1997)

Subject: Harmonization of rights of way legislation in the EU

Is the Commission aware that the public in the United Kingdom benefits greatly from rights of way legislation in
terms of access to the countryside compared to their counterparts in other Member States?

For example, in the UK there has always been a common law that in effect states that regular use of a way makes
it a public highway and once a highway always a highway.

It  is  an  offence  in  the  UK  to  obstruct  a  right  of  way  and  there  is  a  statutory  obligation  that  local  highway
authorities signpost footpaths and bridleways.

This is greatly appreciated by walkers from the Member States who visit the UK countryside.

Has the Commission any proposals in the pipeline to harmonize rights of way legislation in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1997)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.

(98/C 102/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/97

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) and Catherine Lalumie‘re (ARE) to the Commission

Subject: Allocation of PHARE funds for educational books

(31 October 1997)

The history textbook which was issued to schools in Slovakia by the Ministry of Education at the end of 1996 is
openly revisionist. The author was Milan S. Durica, who has acted, inter alia, as an apologist for Fascist Slovakia.
The  disputed  work  was  withdrawn  from  schools  at  the  end  of  August  this  year.  Slovakia  has  no  shortage  of
reputable historians, and there is a great need for the young generation of the countries of Eastern Europe to
re-learn their history.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3480/97 by Panayotis LAMBRIAS to the Commission. Application of Community law
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, LAMBRIAS
Subjects: application of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, public administration













EUR-Lex - 91997E3480 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3480

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3480/97 by Panayotis LAMBRIAS to the Commission. Application of Community law  


Official Journal C 174 , 08/06/1998 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)Subject: Application of Community lawThe report on monitoring the application of Community law (1996) shows that the Commission's 'package meetings' with the Member States produced a solution in 42% of the cases examined. In view of the fact that this purely preventive measure saves considerable amounts of money and effort for the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Member States, will the Commission say:1. whether it plans to hold such meetings more systematically and regularly,2 what 'package meetings' are scheduled for 1998, so as to allow more scope for preparation, and,3. whether it has the required number of lawyers on its staff, particularly in the fields of the environment and civil liberties?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1997)1. The Commission regularly holds package meetings with the authorities of the Member States to consider the whole range of infringement proceedings in motion in a given area. It has developed this practice wherever possible.The Commission is also planning to pursue its bilateral meetings with the national authorities concerning the implementation of directives in general terms. These meetings (known as 'directive missions') provide an opportunity to make authorities aware of their duty to transpose directives and to help them in their job of doing so. The purpose is to speed up the transposal process and thereby avert infringement situations.2. The schedule of meetings for 1998 is under discussion with the national authorities.3. Yes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3460/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. JRC in Ispra
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, European Commission, European official, General Court (EU), Italy, Joint Research Centre, management, regulations for civil servants, statistics













EUR-Lex - 91997E3460 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3460

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3460/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. JRC in Ispra  


Official Journal C 187 , 16/06/1998 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)Subject: JRC in IspraThe Ispra JRC does not always appear to be run in a totally transparent manner. In particular, the Italian members of staff do not appear to be accorded their rightful place in the organization.Would the Commission not agree that it should conduct inquiries into why Italian members of the JRC staff continually lodge complaints pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations or appeal to the Court of First Instance? Some officials actually have several complaints or appeals pending.Does the Commission not find it strange that such complaints are confined exclusively to Italian staff and are unheard of among staff of other nationalities?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)The Commission's statistics show that staff lodge complaints under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and appeal to the Court of First Instance without any substantial quantitative differences regarding places of employment. It is understandable in Ispra's case that Italians would avail themselves of these facilities more than other nationalities as there is a higher representation of this nationality than any other in that organisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3463/97 by Rijk van DAM to the Commission. Access to French inland waterways
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DAM
Subjects: France, freedom of navigation, freight rate, inland waterway shipping, inland waterway transport, maritime cabotage, restriction on competition

C 174/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 6. 98

(98/C 174/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

There have been reports that a firm has been set up in England, with a branch office in the small town of Ranco,
not far from the JRC in Ispra. The alleged purpose of this firm is to recruit staff who are then employed in various
capacities at the JRC.

Are these worrying reports true?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1998)

In the Lombardy region, and in particular the province of Varese, there has always been a close network of small
and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  If  they  meet  the  requirements,  these  companies  may  respond  to
invitations to tender launched by the Commission. Should these SMEs win the contract, they must carry out the
work under their own responsibility and with their own staff.

It is true that a company having the geographical characteristics mentioned (set up in the United Kingdom with a
branch in Ranco) exists. It must be noted that companies set up in other Member States and operating in the North
of Italy are on the increase.

However, Contractual agreement exists with this or any other company for recruiting staff to take up posts with
the JRC.

(98/C 174/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/97

by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission

(31 October 1997)

Subject: Access to French inland waterways

1.
According to a report in the Scheepvaartkrant of 30 September 1997, foreign skippers in France are being
excluded on journeys within France. In the South of France in particular cabotage itself is almost impossible. In
addition  on  the  freight  markets  in  France  there  is  apparently  a  categoric  refusal  to  ship  goods  in  France  on
non-French vessels. Can the Commission confirm these reports?

If so, what measures does the Commission intend to take against this violation of the free market principle

2.
and in particular against the cabotage directive?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1997)

The Commission is aware of an alleged discrimination against non-French barge-owners in the operation of the
French (cid:145)tour de ro(cid:136)le(cid:146) in inland waterway transport. It is clear that this alleged discrimination would be contrary to
Community law and, in particular, to the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December
1991 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
waterway within a Member State (1).

The Commission has contacted the French authorities with a view to verifying the existence or otherwise of the
alleged discrimination.

(1)  OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
97/779/EC: Commission Decision of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 97/778/EC drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries and laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the veterinary experts of the Commission (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1997-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, animal product, customs inspection, import, third country, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 31997D0779 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31997D0779

97/779/EC: Commission Decision of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 97/778/EC drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries and laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the veterinary experts of the Commission (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 315 , 19/11/1997 P. 0028 - 0029 





COMMISSION DECISION of 31 October 1997 amending Decision 97/778/EC drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries and laying down detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the veterinary experts of the Commission (Text with EEA relevance) (97/779/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof,Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (3), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC, and in particular Article 6 (4) thereof,Whereas Commission Decision 97/778/EC (4) draws up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on products and animals from third countries;Whereas, at the request of the competent authorities of Belgium, the Charleroi border post has been inspected by Commission staff, and whereas in view of the results of the inspection, Decision 97/778/EC must be amended to include the Charleroi border inspection post;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 The Annex to Decision 97/778/EC is amended as follows:In the section concerning Belgium, the following line is added:>TABLE>Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 31 October 1997.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1.(2) OJ L 162, 1. 7. 1996, p. 1.(3) OJ L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.(4) See page 15 of this Official Journal.