do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1583/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Slate industry and barriers to international trade
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: customs duties, earths and stones, enlargement of the Union, export (EU), free movement of goods, import (EU), tariff preference, third country, trade agreement (EU)

C 50/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

Will the Commission say whether the EU imports slate from the applicant countries and, if so, whether the trade
agreements with these countries make provision for preferential tariff arrangements which include slate?

If so, will the Commission give details of the margin of preference and tariff rate applicable to slate from the
applicant countries under the preferential tariff arrangements and say how these might develop or change in
future?

(1999/C 50/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/98

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

Subject: Slate industry and preferential tariff arrangements

(25 May 1998)

Will the Commission provide details of the margin of preference and customs tariff applied to EU imports of slate
from each of the third countries covered by preferential tariff arrangements and say how these might develop or
change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the customs tariff applied to Community slate exports to each of the
countries which themselves export slate to the EU under preferential tariff arrangements?

(1999/C 50/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/98

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

Subject: Customs tariffs for slate

(25 May 1998)

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to EU imports of slate from each of
the third countries not covered by preferential tariff arrangements for this product and say how these might
develop or change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to the Community exports of slate to
each of the countries which themselves export slate to the EU and are not covered by any preferential tariff
arrangements in this sector and say how these might develop or change in future?

(1999/C 50/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/98

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

Subject: Slate industry and barriers to international trade

(25 May 1998)

Replying on behalf of the Commission to my previous Written Questions Nos. E-4009/97 and E-4011/97 (1), Sir
Leon Brittan speaking, pointed out that the Commission had launched a new initiative in November 1996
concerning the strategy and prospects for access for the Community industry to third-country markets with a view
to identifying and eliminating barriers to Community exports. In this connection, Commissioner Brittan called on
the slate industry to play an active part in this initiative as regards identifying barriers to international trade.

Will the Commission say what specific form this initiative has taken and what progress it has made, and give
details of how the slate industry might participate?

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/98 of 25 May 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: marketing standard, poultrymeat

L 157/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 5. 98

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1101/98

of 25 May 1998

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for
poultrymeat

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75
of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the
market in poultrymeat (1), and in particular Article 2(2)
thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 (2)
certain marketing standards for poultrymeat;

lays down

Article 1

Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 is hereby
replaced by the following:

The percentages of water absorption which are
‘1.
technically unavoidable and which shall not be
exceeded during the preparation of fresh, frozen and
quick-frozen carcases and cuts thereof as well as the
uniform methods of verifying compliance therewith
shall be determined in accordance with the procedure
laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/
75'.

Whereas poultrymeat is being increasingly marketed in
the form of cuts; whereas the checking of
the water
content should therefore be extended to certain pieces of
poultrymeat,

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day
following its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 25 May 1998.

For the Council

The President

J. CUNNINGHAM

(1) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 77. Regulation as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2916/95 (OJ L 305, 19. 12. 1995, p. 49).
(2) OJ L 173, 6. 7. 1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 3204/93 (OJ L 289, 24. 11. 1993, p. 3).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1593/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Research programmes
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, STENZEL
Subjects: professional qualifications, project evaluation, recruitment, research and development, research budget, research programme, self-employed person, technological change













EUR-Lex - 91998E1593 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1593

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1593/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Research programmes  


Official Journal C 050 , 22/02/1999 P. 0052 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/98by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission(25 May 1998)Subject: Research programmesWhat criteria are used in the selection of experts responsible for deciding on the award of research funds? Is any balance between the Member States observed in making this selection?Can the Commission say how many experts, and which ones precisely, were involved in the award of funds to Brite-Euram in 1996?Can the Commission rule out the possibility that some countries were disproportionately under-represented, or not represented at all, and that this had any effect on the award of funds?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission(17 July 1998)The primary criteria for choosing experts to evaluate proposals submitted to European Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes are:- competence and experience appropriate to the area under consideration;- an appropriate balance of backgrounds (e.g. industrial, academic, users);- absence of links with the consortia submitting the proposals examined;- absence of bias either for or against any particular proposal or proposing team.Experts are chosen from as broad a geographical base as possible, mainly from within the Member States and third countries associated with the framework programme. Experts from third countries are also chosen if their particular skills are needed. As far as possible, the Commission avoids using experts to evaluate a proposal who come from the same country as the proposal coordinator. In addition, experts are regularly replaced to guard against the formation of "clubs" of regular evaluators.The numbers and backgrounds of the expert evaluators used in 1996 by the industrial and materials technologies (Brite-Euram III) programme were as follows:>TABLE>Because of problems with the availability of experts during the evaluation sessions, it is not always possible to maintain the planned geographical spread. It is clear from the results of evaluation sessions, though, that the proportion of experts from any particular country in the evaluation panels has never had any effect on the rating of proposals from that country.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1596/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Protection of the Karen tribe
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, Thailand, UNHCR, aid to refugees, ethnic conflict, ethnic group, human rights, protection of minorities, refugee, the EU's international role

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 50/53

The numbers and backgrounds of the expert evaluators used in 1996 by the industrial and materials technologies
(Brite-Euram III) programme were as follows:

Country

Educational

Industrial

Research

Consultant

Other

Total

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Norway

Total

6

9
9
10
6
4
7
3
1
3
4

6

65

12
7
32
5
16
26
11
27

15
9
9
10
10
21
2

9
7
10
5
12
11
3
6

3
1
5
3
1
7
2

215

85

2
1
2

2
4

1

1
10

23

3
1
3
1
5
7

3

8
2

1
2
6
1

32
16
56
20
43
50
20
47
3
28
15
18
14
14
50
5

43

431

Because of problems with the availability of experts during the evaluation sessions, it is not always possible to
maintain the planned geographical spread. It is clear from the results of evaluation sessions, though, that the
proportion of experts from any particular country in the evaluation panels has never had any effect on the rating
of proposals from that country.

(1999/C 50/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1596/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Protection of the Karen tribe

Has the European Community taken any external action to promote the protection of Karen tribe refugees
sheltering in Thailand?

Does the Commission foresee any intervention by the Community, and, in particular ECHO, to prevent the abuse
of the tribe(cid:146)s human rights by guerillas crossing the border from Burma?

Answer given by Mr Mar(cid:237)n on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 1998)

The Commission has, on several occasions, called on the Thai government and the national security council to
provide appropriate protection to the 110 000 refugees living in camps along the border between Burmese and
Thailand, since it is the exclusive mandate of the Thai security forces to assure the security of the Thai border and
the protection of the refugees seeking shelter on Thai soil against cross-border guerrilla attacks.

The United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR), having a non-military, general protection
mandate for refugees against human rights abuses, has not yet a permanent mandate on the border, but will soon
be allowed to be permanently represented there. However, UNHCR(cid:146)s protection mandate does not include
military protection against guerrilla attacks from across the border. This remains the prerogative of the Thai
security forces.

Therefore the Commission does not foresee any Community intervention in the sense requested by the
Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1605/98 by Francisco LUCAS PIRES to the Commission. Rate of implementation of the various Community Support Frameworks
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, LUCAS PIRES
Subjects: Community support framework, EU Member State, EU aid, European Community

C 354/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

(98/C 354/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/98

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Council

(25 May 1998)

Subject: State of disrepair of former frontier posts

The  abolition  of  the  internal  frontiers  can  be  seen  as  one  of  the  great  achievements  of  the  European  Union.
The physical disappearance of barriers between countries, viewed at the outset with incredulity, is today seen as
something quite natural which helps to foster a greater sense of European citizenship.

However, at some former frontier posts (Puente de Santiago, Behobia, Biriatou, etc. between France and Spain)
the old buildings which used to house customs services are still standing. The state of disrepair into which these
have fallen because of lack of maintenance and neglect on the part of the authorities is offensive and disgraceful.
Windows have been broken, rubbish is piling up, doors have been torn from their hinges, and so on.

In  conclusion,  the  state  of  the  former  frontier  posts  could  hardly  be  more  deplorable,  undermining  the  most
high-profile political decision ever taken as part of the building of Europe.

What measures will the Council promote to remove the physical frontiers once and for all?

Should this prove impossible, who should be responsible for maintaining and looking after these buildings?

Is the Council aware of any other frontier posts in the same conditions as those described above?

Answer

(20 July 1998)

It is not for the Council to discuss the demolition or conversion of buildings previously used as frontier posts
between Member States; these are matters for national customs authorities.

(98/C 354/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/98

by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Rate of implementation of the various Community Support Frameworks

What, according to the Commission(cid:146)s latest assessment, is the rate of implementation of the Community Support
Frameworks by the various countries for which Community funding is organised in this way?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 june 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 354/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1608/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Genetic databases

1. Which  EU  Member  States  have  DNA  databases  for  criminal  investigation  purposes,  and  on  what  legal
bases have they been set up?

For what offences, and at what stage (suspicion, reporting of offence to the police, prosecution, sentence or

2.
warning), is a genetic profile stored in the database?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1600/98 by Ana MIRANDA DE LAGE to the Council. State of disrepair of former frontier posts
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, MIRANDA DE LAGE
Subjects: Spain, building safety, customs, damage, public building

C 354/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

(98/C 354/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/98

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Council

(25 May 1998)

Subject: State of disrepair of former frontier posts

The  abolition  of  the  internal  frontiers  can  be  seen  as  one  of  the  great  achievements  of  the  European  Union.
The physical disappearance of barriers between countries, viewed at the outset with incredulity, is today seen as
something quite natural which helps to foster a greater sense of European citizenship.

However, at some former frontier posts (Puente de Santiago, Behobia, Biriatou, etc. between France and Spain)
the old buildings which used to house customs services are still standing. The state of disrepair into which these
have fallen because of lack of maintenance and neglect on the part of the authorities is offensive and disgraceful.
Windows have been broken, rubbish is piling up, doors have been torn from their hinges, and so on.

In  conclusion,  the  state  of  the  former  frontier  posts  could  hardly  be  more  deplorable,  undermining  the  most
high-profile political decision ever taken as part of the building of Europe.

What measures will the Council promote to remove the physical frontiers once and for all?

Should this prove impossible, who should be responsible for maintaining and looking after these buildings?

Is the Council aware of any other frontier posts in the same conditions as those described above?

Answer

(20 July 1998)

It is not for the Council to discuss the demolition or conversion of buildings previously used as frontier posts
between Member States; these are matters for national customs authorities.

(98/C 354/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/98

by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Rate of implementation of the various Community Support Frameworks

What, according to the Commission(cid:146)s latest assessment, is the rate of implementation of the Community Support
Frameworks by the various countries for which Community funding is organised in this way?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 june 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 354/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1608/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Genetic databases

1. Which  EU  Member  States  have  DNA  databases  for  criminal  investigation  purposes,  and  on  what  legal
bases have they been set up?

For what offences, and at what stage (suspicion, reporting of offence to the police, prosecution, sentence or

2.
warning), is a genetic profile stored in the database?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1582/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Customs tariffs for slate
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: customs duties, earths and stones, enlargement of the Union, export (EU), free movement of goods, import (EU), tariff preference, third country, trade agreement (EU)

C 50/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

Will the Commission say whether the EU imports slate from the applicant countries and, if so, whether the trade
agreements with these countries make provision for preferential tariff arrangements which include slate?

If so, will the Commission give details of the margin of preference and tariff rate applicable to slate from the
applicant countries under the preferential tariff arrangements and say how these might develop or change in
future?

(1999/C 50/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/98

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

Subject: Slate industry and preferential tariff arrangements

(25 May 1998)

Will the Commission provide details of the margin of preference and customs tariff applied to EU imports of slate
from each of the third countries covered by preferential tariff arrangements and say how these might develop or
change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the customs tariff applied to Community slate exports to each of the
countries which themselves export slate to the EU under preferential tariff arrangements?

(1999/C 50/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/98

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

Subject: Customs tariffs for slate

(25 May 1998)

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to EU imports of slate from each of
the third countries not covered by preferential tariff arrangements for this product and say how these might
develop or change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the respective customs tariffs applicable to the Community exports of slate to
each of the countries which themselves export slate to the EU and are not covered by any preferential tariff
arrangements in this sector and say how these might develop or change in future?

(1999/C 50/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1583/98

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

Subject: Slate industry and barriers to international trade

(25 May 1998)

Replying on behalf of the Commission to my previous Written Questions Nos. E-4009/97 and E-4011/97 (1), Sir
Leon Brittan speaking, pointed out that the Commission had launched a new initiative in November 1996
concerning the strategy and prospects for access for the Community industry to third-country markets with a view
to identifying and eliminating barriers to Community exports. In this connection, Commissioner Brittan called on
the slate industry to play an active part in this initiative as regards identifying barriers to international trade.

Will the Commission say what specific form this initiative has taken and what progress it has made, and give
details of how the slate industry might participate?

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1590/98 by Klaus LUKAS to the Commission. Linguistic discrimination in delegations
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, LUKAS
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Commission Delegation, EU publication, Germany, linguistic discrimination, official document, official language, translation













EUR-Lex - 91998E1590 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1590

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1590/98 by Klaus LUKAS to the Commission. Linguistic discrimination in delegations  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0049 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/98by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission(25 May 1998)Subject: Linguistic discrimination in delegationsCan the Commission explain why the regular publications, press releases etc. issued by its delegations in Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Ljubljana etc. only contain texts in the local language plus French and English?This information policy is all the harder to understand since German is in many cases the most widely spoken and understood Western foreign language in these countries, often more so than English. Moreover, in most of the former Communist countries there are relatively large German-speaking minorities who could be informed of EU policies by means of German-language publications.When will the Commission instruct its delegations to abandon their practice of linguistic discrimination and give the German language equal status with English?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission(30 June 1998)German is an official Community language which can be used by anyone without discrimination in contacts with the Commission. This also holds true for the delegations in the former Communist states.Information material is produced to convey information to specific target groups whose language knowledge determines the language versions required. General information is produced in all official languages and is also available in German on request from the delegations.The additional information work carried out independently by the delegations is produced for a local public in the relevant national language and does not necessarily require translation into one, several or all official languages of the Community. Discrimination against German-speaking groups abroad is neither intended nor implied: these groups usually speak the language in question and translations are not provided for minorities from other member states either. Where a German-speaking group is targeted in particular, the relevant material is produced in German.