do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1547/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Laser pens
Date: 1998-05-19
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: apparatus based on the use of rays, consumer protection, marketing restriction, product safety, public health, technical standard, withdrawal from the market

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/147

(98/C 386/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1547/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Laser pens

1.

Does the Commission believe that the use of laser pens is dangerous?

2.

If so, what steps will it be taking to restrict their use?

3. Which Member States ban the use of laser pens or plan to introduce such a ban?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission, on the basis of the information it has obtained up to now, considers that in certain
circumstances the improper use of certain laser pointers may constitute a hazard.

Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety is applicable (1) to laser pencils and
pointers. The Directive provides that Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that only safe
products are placed on the Community market (Article 2(b)).

Hence it is primarily for the Member States to take action in the case of products which present a danger to the
health and safety of consumers, by adopting the necessary measures, including if necessary the recall of the
product from the market.

Recently, in the framework of the notification system provided for in Article 8 of Directive 92/59/EEC, the
Commission received five emergency notifications from three Member States (Germany, France, the United
Kingdom) concerning measures adopted in respect of laser pencils or pointers. In compliance with the standard
procedure, the Commission rapidly circulated this information to the national authorities responsible for
protecting the health and safety of consumers to enable them to take the necessary measures. In effect, pursuant
to the Directive, the Commission can only take measures in respect of products presenting a serious and
immediate risk if requested to do so by the Member States and only provided the various conditions set out in
Articles 9 to 11 of the Directive are complied with.

The Member States that sent the notifications to the Commission have taken certain national measures of varying
scope. For example France has inter alia adopted a decree banning the production, importation, placing on the
market and ordaining the withdrawal of laser pointers in Class 3 or higher (standard NFEN 60825.1), while
Germany has introduced similar provisions.

Other Member States are currently considering what measures to adopt and have not yet informed the
Commission of their intentions in this area.

Since this is a recent problem, the Commission will be closely monitoring future developments and notably the
measures taken by the Member States in application of the Directive on general product safety, so as to ensure a
high level of protection and safety throughout the Community where these products are concerned.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1545/98 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Promotion of plants and flowers
Date: 1998-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: EU financing, aid system, co-financing, floriculture, living plant, producer organisation, quasi-fiscal charge, sales promotion

5.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 31/55

(1999/C 31/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Promotion of plants and flowers

With reference to Regulation (EC) 832/97 (1) on the promotion of floricultural products, it would seem that
during the implementation of the first stage of the measure, the programmes submitted and carried out have
suffered from the fact that only one body in the European Union possessed sufficient resources to cover the
difference between the total costs of the promotional campaigns and the Community contribution.

1.

Is this true?

If so

2.

Should the Commission not consider seriously whether this instrument is efficient, fair and impartial?

3.
Does it not believe that the EU(cid:146)s acceptance of the Dutch law imposing a parafiscal levy on flowers
(Community and other) in transit through its territory will in all probability exacerbate the imbalance in future
years between the capacity of the Dutch Flower Bureau to provide financial support in this sector and that enjoyed
by the flower sector in other Member States?

Does it not consider that the omission of floriculture from Agenda 2000 is unjustified and will have adverse

4.
effects in future years?

(1) OJ L 119, 8.5.1997, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

In response to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s first point, the Commission(cid:146)s practical experience has been that many
professional and interprofessional organisations have had the resources to co-finance the promotional measures
selected. Co-financing of this type parallels existing practice in other sectors.

As regards the Dutch levy, it should be pointed out that the use of funds raised from obligatory charges on
operators in the sector can facilitate the implementation of programmes. For this reason their use was permitted
by Commission Regulation (EEC) 803/98 of 16 April 1998 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the application
of Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products (1).

Under Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 of 22 November 1996 (2) Community aid is granted for promotional
programmes lasting up to three years. The Commission must wait to assess the results obtained from the scheme
before deciding what further action is required for the sector.

(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998.
(2) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996.

(1999/C 31/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia

Is the Commission aware that there is a secret agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom

1.
on the processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia at Dounreay in Scotland?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1548/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia
Date: 1998-05-19
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: Georgia, Scotland, import, nuclear chemistry, nuclear industry, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, storage of waste, waste management, waste recycling

5.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 31/55

(1999/C 31/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1545/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Promotion of plants and flowers

With reference to Regulation (EC) 832/97 (1) on the promotion of floricultural products, it would seem that
during the implementation of the first stage of the measure, the programmes submitted and carried out have
suffered from the fact that only one body in the European Union possessed sufficient resources to cover the
difference between the total costs of the promotional campaigns and the Community contribution.

1.

Is this true?

If so

2.

Should the Commission not consider seriously whether this instrument is efficient, fair and impartial?

3.
Does it not believe that the EU(cid:146)s acceptance of the Dutch law imposing a parafiscal levy on flowers
(Community and other) in transit through its territory will in all probability exacerbate the imbalance in future
years between the capacity of the Dutch Flower Bureau to provide financial support in this sector and that enjoyed
by the flower sector in other Member States?

Does it not consider that the omission of floriculture from Agenda 2000 is unjustified and will have adverse

4.
effects in future years?

(1) OJ L 119, 8.5.1997, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

In response to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s first point, the Commission(cid:146)s practical experience has been that many
professional and interprofessional organisations have had the resources to co-finance the promotional measures
selected. Co-financing of this type parallels existing practice in other sectors.

As regards the Dutch levy, it should be pointed out that the use of funds raised from obligatory charges on
operators in the sector can facilitate the implementation of programmes. For this reason their use was permitted
by Commission Regulation (EEC) 803/98 of 16 April 1998 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the application
of Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 introducing specific measures for live plants and floricultural products (1).

Under Council Regulation (EC) 2275/96 of 22 November 1996 (2) Community aid is granted for promotional
programmes lasting up to three years. The Commission must wait to assess the results obtained from the scheme
before deciding what further action is required for the sector.

(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998.
(2) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996.

(1999/C 31/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1548/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Nuclear waste transported to Scotland from Georgia

Is the Commission aware that there is a secret agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom

1.
on the processing and storage of nuclear waste from Georgia at Dounreay in Scotland?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1556/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Women-only short lists
Date: 1998-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: Scotland, United Kingdom, Wales, application of EU law, candidate, decision-making, election, equal treatment, gender equality, sexual discrimination













EUR-Lex - 91998E1556 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1556

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1556/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Women-only short lists  


Official Journal C 354 , 19/11/1998 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1556/98 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (19 May 1998)Subject: Women-only short listsThe Commission will be aware of the recent discussion in the UK concerning possible measures to increase the number of women sitting in the new Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. In particular, the proposal to ensure equal numbers of women and men in the assemblies would require an amendment to existing national legislation, in this case the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, in order to avoid a repetition of the action brought against women-only short lists in the Labour Party in 1996.Senior UK lawyers are reported in the British media to have asserted that such a reform of the Sex Discrimination Act would fall foul of the European Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC.Would the Commissioner confirm his answer to my previous question on the subject of positive discrimination in selection of election candidates (E-0161/96) ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p. 4. )) that the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC ((OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40. )) refers exclusively to employment relationships and that standing for election is not an employment relationship, so that election procedures do not fall within the scope of the Directive?Would he agree, therefore, that it is wrong to cite European legislation as a legal impediment to national measures aimed at improving the number of women serving in elected bodies at local, regional or national level?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1998)The Commission considers that Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions refers only to employment relationships covered by a contract drawn up between the worker and his employer. Given that a candidature for election is not an employment relationship as described above, it does not fall within the scope of either Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Directive 76/207/EEC.The Commission agrees that Community legislation is not a legal impediment to national measures to improve the representation of women in elected bodies.Council Recommendation 96/694/EC of 2 December 1996 on the balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process ((OJ L 319, 10.12.1996. )) recommends that Member States should adopt a comprehensive strategy to promote a balanced participation of women and men in the decision making process.