do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1329/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Effect of WTO deals on EU animal welfare provision
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, animal experimentation, animal welfare, bilateral agreement, hunting regulations, international standard, marketing standard, multilateral agreement, protection of animals, third country













EUR-Lex - 91998E1329 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1329

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1329/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Effect of WTO deals on EU animal welfare provision  


Official Journal C 402 , 22/12/1998 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/98by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission(29 April 1998)Subject: Effect of WTO deals on EU animal welfare provisionConcerns have recently been raised by relevant interest groups about the effect that certain WTO deals may have on EU animal rights legislation. In particular, it has been suggested by Compassion in World Farming in the UK that measures agreed by the EU banning imports of furs from countries using leghold traps and prohibiting the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals have come unravelled in the face of WTO challenges.1. Does the Commission see a conflict between WTO agreements and EU animal welfare provision?2. How does the Commission intend either to reconcile this conflict or to ensure that it does not arise?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission(11 June 1998)World trade organization (WTO) agreements do not prevent the introduction of measures which are considered to be necessary for the protection of animals on the territory of the Community. However, it is the Commission's view that it cannot unilaterally impose the Community's welfare-based production standards on third countries. Under WTO rules as currently interpreted there is a conflict between WTO agreements and Community animal welfare provisions if the Community's welfare-based production standards are made a condition for imports from third countries.Such possible conflicts can be effectively avoided through the adoption of international welfare-based standards in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Furthermore, given the fact that animal welfare is becoming an increasingly relevant issue in terms of international trade, this issue may be raised in the WTO context in the future. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiation objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 912/98 of 29 April 1998 fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the 11th partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, olive oil

L 128/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 912/98

of 29 April 1998

fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the 11th partial invitation to
tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No
1978/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of
22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common
organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1581/96 (2), and in
particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1978/97 (3)
issued a standing invitation to tender with a view to
determining the export refunds on olive oil;

Whereas Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1978/97
provides that maximum amounts are to be fixed for the
export refunds in the light in particular of the current
situation
the
Community and world olive-oil markets and on the basis
of the tenders received; whereas contracts are awarded to
any tenderer who submits a tender at the level of the
maximum refund or at a lower level;

developments

foreseeable

and

on

Whereas, for the purposes of applying the abovemen-
tioned provisions, the maximum export refunds should be
set at the levels specified in the Annex;

Whereas the Management Committee for Oils and Fats
has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by
its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refunds for olive oil for the 11th
partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation
to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97 are
hereby fixed in the Annex, on the basis of the tenders
submitted by 23 April 1998.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 278, 11. 10. 1997, p. 7.

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/31

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 29 April 1998 fixing the maximum export refunds for
olive oil for the 11th partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender
issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97

Product code

Amount of refund

(ECU/100 kg)

1509 10 90 9100

1509 10 90 9900

1509 90 00 9100

1509 90 00 9900

1510 00 90 9100

1510 00 90 9900

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

NB: The product codes and the footnotes are defined in amended

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1334/98 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Final report of the international MOX assessment
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: fuel reprocessing, irradiated fuel, nuclear fuel, oxide, report

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/115

(98/C 386/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1334/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Final report of the international MOX assessment

With reference to the findings of the final report of the international MOX assessment › (cid:145)Comprehensive social
impact assessment of MOX in light water reactors(cid:146), can the Commission say what action is to be taken to account
for these findings?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission has taken note of the report published in November 1997 by a non-governmental organization
(NGO) to which the Honourable Member appears to refer. The assessments presented in this report differ from
those of the G8 experts. Whatever comments the Commission might make with regard thereto, it would remind
the Honourable Member that the decision whether or not to use mixed oxide fuel (MOX) rests with each Member
State which produces nuclear electricity. These Member States must therefore assess the possible consequences
of their choice.

(98/C 386/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1343/98

by JosØ Salafranca SÆnchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Helms-Burton Act

In connection with the answer received on 13 March 1998 from Mr Brittan on behalf of the Commission
(E-0236/98) (1) on the negotiations between the Community and the US on a number of subjects, including the
Helms-Burton Act.Can the Commission provide some more precise information and indicate on what dates and at
what level the preparatory meetings for the 15 January 1998 ministerial meeting were held?

Can the Commission specify the expected timetable for the forthcoming negotiations and meeting on the matter
between the Community and the US?

In view of a number of recent statements by Mr Brittan to the effect that the negotiations are (cid:145)half-way through(cid:146),
and that there is no deadline for a settlement, can the Commission state which are the points on which agreement
has been reached and which have still to be resolved?

Despite the fact that no deadline has been set for the conclusion of the negotiations, can the Commission state
how long it believes the present situation can go on?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 29.

(98/C 386/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1344/98

by JosØ Salafranca SÆnchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Helm-Burton Act and relations with the US

In view of the recent decision of the US Administration in favour of the partial lifting of the restrictions on travel,
humanitarian aid and remittances to Cuba, does the Commission believe that this decision may have ben
influenced by the positions of the EU in the negotiations on the Helms-Burton Act? Was this subject discussed at
the ministerial meeting of 15 January 1998?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1213/98 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. Competitiveness
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European industrial area, Japan, United States, competitiveness, economic analysis, market access, productivity, single market

C 386/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.98

(98/C 386/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as food, drink,
tobacco and furniture, outperform their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

How do these sectors perform by comparison with the USA?

(98/C 386/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as food, outperform
their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

When is it intending to submit these conclusions?

(98/C 386/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as drink, outperform
their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

When is it intending to submit these conclusions?

(98/C 386/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000), the
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1335/98 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Development of a MOX (plutonium and uranium) reactor fuel
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: CERN, nuclear fuel, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, plutonium, research and development, technological change, uranium

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/113

(98/C 402/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1335/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Development of a MOX (plutonium and uranium) reactor fuel

Relating to the arrangements for the disposal of radioactive wastes and with reference to the other option for
handling plutonium, that is the immobilization route for separated plutonium, what funding is available for this
route?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 1998)

Within the nuclear fission safety programme(cid:146)s research area on exploring innovative approaches, some
theoretical studies have been undertaken on the use of (cid:145)advanced(cid:146) mixed oxide fuels (MOX) for transmutation
of plutonium. In addition, the Commission has been studying over several years the characterization of MOX fuel
and its behaviour. Funding of research and technological development has also been provided in the area of spent
fuel immobilization, namely in deep geological repositories. However, there is no Community support provided
for investment in the immobilisation of spent fuel or the fabrication of MOX.

(98/C 402/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Funding a Mox text facility

Further to the answer given to Written Question E-2891/97 (1), can the Commission say what body is responsible
for setting the standards for the tests in the Low Dispersible Materials test facility?

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

The genesis of a material such as LDM (low dispersible material) must be approved by the competent authorities
concerned. It will be up to those safety authorities to establish the methodology to be used in qualifying LDM in
accordance with the criteria recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) › where
appropriate in experimental facilities. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) could be such a facility.

(98/C 402/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1338/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Habitats Directive and Berne Convention

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that it agrees on the inclusion in the annexes of the Berne
Convention and the Emerald Network the key species which have been left out of the Annexes of the Habitats
Directive?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 910/98 of 29 April 1998 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 36th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1408/97
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/27

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 910/98

of 29 April 1998

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 36th partial invitation
to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1408/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 17 (5) (b) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1408/97 of 22
July 1997 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
levies and/or
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1408/97 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the state
and foreseeable development of
the Community and
world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender
in question;

following an examination of

the tenders
Whereas,
submitted in response to the 36th partial invitation to
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

Whereas the Management Committee for Sugar has not
delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its
chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 36th partial invitation to tender for white sugar
to Regulation (EC) No 1408/97 the
issued pursuant
maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at ECU
47,661 per 100 kilograms.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 April 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 194, 23. 7. 1997, p. 16.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1324/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. Establishment of a European climate agency
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: action programme, air quality, climate, environmental protection, hydrocarbon, oil pollution

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/113

effectiveness of Community measures in this area, the Commission will continue its efforts to obtain a Council
Decision on a Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism, such as the one put forward in the 1996
proposal for a Council Decision on a First Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism › Philoxenia
(1997-2000) (1) and the subsequent amended proposal (2).

Given its existing responsibilities, however, the Commission does not consider the creation of a European
Tourism Office appropriate.

(1) OJ C 222, 31.7.1996.
(2) OJ C 13, 14.1.1997.

(98/C 386/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1324/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Establishment of a European climate agency

Following the position adopted by the European Parliament on the Commission(cid:146)s strategy paper on reducing
methane emissions, what is the Commission(cid:146)s response to the suggestion from the Environment Committee that a
European climate agency should be set up and when is such an agency likely to see the light of day?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The question of creating a European climate agency was raised in the Parliament(cid:146)s resolution on the
Commission(cid:146)s communication (cid:145)A strategy for reducing methane(cid:146) (1).

In reply to this specific question during the debate on the above communication, the Commission said that the
idea of creating a European climate agency was an interesting idea and deserved consideration. However, before
the Commission could take a position, such a step would require further careful examination since it raises a large
number of practical and institutional questions concerning the role of such an agency. The Commission is not at
the moment pursuing this issue as it is concentrating its efforts on following up the Kyoto conference which is a
top priority.

(1) COM(96) 557 final.

(98/C 386/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1328/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Compulsory competitive tendering: case of Oldham Metropolitan District Council (UK)

Is the Commission aware of a recent case in the UK involving a building maintenance contract awarded by
Oldham Metropolitan District Council to its own Direct Services Organization without the due competitive
tendering process taking place? This case was subject to the issuance of a notice under Section 14 of the 1988
Local Government Act on Compulsory Competitive Tendering in August 1995, which was subsequently
overruled (early in 1998) by the incoming UK administration.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 922/98 of 29 April 1998 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, raw sugar, white sugar

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/59

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 922/98

of 29 April 1998

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural
state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 19 (4) thereof,

Whereas the refunds on white sugar and raw sugar
exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 909/98 (3);

Whereas it
follows from applying the detailed rules
contained in Regulation (EC) No 909/98 to the informa-
tion known to the Commission that the export refunds at

present in force should be altered to the amounts set out
in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1 (1)
(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, undenatured and
exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to
amended Regulation (EC) No 909/98 are hereby altered
to the amounts shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 43.
(3) See page 25 of this Official Journal.

L 128/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 29 April 1998 altering the export refunds on white sugar
and raw sugar exported in its unaltered state

ANNEX

Product code

1701 11 90 9100
1701 11 90 9910
1701 11 90 9950
1701 12 90 9100
1701 12 90 9910
1701 12 90 9950

Amount of refund

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

41,05
38,96

41,05
38,96

(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 91 00 9000

0,4463

1701 99 10 9100
1701 99 10 9910
1701 99 10 9950

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

44,63
44,63
44,63

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 99 90 9100

0,4463

(1) Applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %; if the yield is other than 92 %,
the refund applicable is calculated in accordance with the provisions of
Article 17a (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81.

(2) Fixing suspended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2689/85 (OJ L 255, 26. 9.
1985, p. 12), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3251/85 (OJ L 309, 21. 11.
1985, p. 14).