do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1780/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Turkey blocks the election of the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Türkiye, United Nations Charter, church-State relations, ethnic group, freedom of religious beliefs, national minority, protection of minorities, religious discrimination, religious group, rights of minorities

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/159

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 1998)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written
Question E-1743/98.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that
question (1).

(1)

See page 156.

(98/C 386/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Turkey blocks the election of the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople

17 May 1998 had been set as the date for the election of the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople following the
death of Patriarch Karekin at the beginning of the year. However, the Turkish authorities have banned this
election, postponing it indefinitely.

This is contrary to the provisions of the founding charter of the UN and the Treaty of Lausanne which Turkey
itself signed and which provides for the non-interference of the Turkish authorities in the activities of the
Armenian Church and the protection of all the Christian minorities living on Turkish territory. Of course, these
provisions have never been respected; in fact the Turkish authorities have systematically exterminated all
Christians (Greeks, Armenians and others) who have refused to abandon the land of their fathers.

Will the Commission state its official views on this matter and say what action it intends to take, since this is
clearly yet another case of the violation of the religious rights of the Christian minorities in Turkey, a country
which has been importuning the EU with its demands for membership but is continuing to use tactics used by
totalitarian regimes?

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

(16 July 1998)

The Commission considers the improvement of the human rights situation and the continuation of democratisa-
tion of particular importance to the development of relations between the Union and Turkey.

At December(cid:146)s Luxembourg European Council, the Union reiterated that strengthening Turkey(cid:146)s links with the
European Union also depended on that country(cid:146)s pursuit of the political and economic reforms on which it had
embarked, including the alignment of human rights standards and practices on those in force in the Union. The
Council added that closer ties also depended on respect for and protection of minorities. The latter naturally
include the Armenians, for whose organisation the election of a Patriarch was crucial.

Despite the Turkish government(cid:146)s decision to suspend all political dialogue with the Union, the Commission will
continue presenting the Union(cid:146)s views on such matters to Turkey.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1218/98 of 11 June 1998 concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1078/98
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export refund, export tax

12. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 167/13

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1218/98

of 11 June 1998

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export
of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1078/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2052/97 (4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund and or the
tax for the export of barley to all third countries was
opened pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1078/98 (5);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, allows
the Commission to decide,
in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC)

No 1766/92 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to
make no award;

Whereas on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1
of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 a maximum refund or a
minimum tax should not be fixed;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 5 to
11 June 1998 in response to the invitation to tender for
the refund or the tax for the export of barley issued in
Regulation (EC) No 1078/98.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 June 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 June 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 287, 21. 10. 1997, p. 14.
(5) OJ L 154, 28. 5. 1998, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1789/98 by Viviane REDING to the Council. Postponement of the ban on testing on animals
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, REDING
Subjects: animal experimentation, animal welfare, application of EU law, cosmetic product, protection of animals, public health, research method













EUR-Lex - 91998E1789 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1789

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1789/98 by Viviane REDING to the Council. Postponement of the ban on testing on animals  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/98by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Council(11 June 1998)Subject: Postponement of the ban on testing on animalsGiven that Directive 93/35/EEC(1) provides for a ban on testing on animals in the cosmetics industry and lays down that such testing must be replaced by alternative methods of testing as from 1 January 1998,that some EU Member States (the Netherlands and Germany) have introduced such a ban but that most have not done so,that the cosmetics industry already has available thousands of ingredients which have been tested on animals,that alternatives to most, frequently cruel, tests on live animals exist but are not being used and that research into new alternative methods of testing finds very little support,and that the Commission has still not taken any action in respect of the promised directive on a ban on testing on animals for finished cosmetics products,why is the Council postponing the ban provided for in the Directive which was due to enter into force in 1998? In the Council's view, does commercial policy take precedence over animal welfare? On what grounds does the Council keep postponing decisions on this issue?Reply(24 September 1998)The Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question No 1790/98 on the same subject. The decision to defer until 30 June 2000 the implementation of the ban on testing on animals was taken by the Commission on the basis of Directive 97/18/EC, bearing in mind the aim of protecting public health and the lack of satisfactory progress made in developing methods to replace such testing.(1) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1805/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Technical assistance for implementation of the MEDA programme
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Mediterranean third countries, contract, regional cooperation, type of business

C 354/126

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

Is the Commission aware of this promotional and propaganda campaign? Has it expressed an opinion about its
objectivity?  What  steps  will  it  take  to  put  an  end  to  this  attempt  to  (cid:145)brainwash(cid:146)  the  Greek  public  about  the
(cid:145)achievements(cid:146) of the Greek Government, when hardly any major project would have been carried out in Greece
without the assistance of the EU structural Funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 1998)

The  Commission  would  refer  the  Honourable  Member  to  the  replies  it  gave  to  Oral  Questions  H-542/98  by
Mr Anastassopoulos  and  H-543/98  by  Mr  Hatzidakis  during  question  time  at  Parliament(cid:146)s  June  1998  part
session (1).

(1)  Debates of the Parliament (June 1998).

(98/C 354/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Technical assistance for implementation of the MEDA programme

To  ensure  the  optimum  implementation  of  the  MEDA  programme  and  secure  technical  assistance  for  the
Commission,  a  number  of  MEDA  Teams-MT  were  set  up  with  back-up  provided  by  a  Support  Unit.
The Commission announced a competition, which was published in the Official Journal of the Communities,
following which a firm was selected to organize the Support Unit which began operating in January 1998.

1.  How was the competition for the Support Unit organized and how was the contract awarded?

2.  What were the conditions of eligibility?

3.  What were the technical specifications and how have they been applied to date?

4.  What  were  the  assessment  criteria  for  the  contract  and  what  are  the  assessment  criteria  for  the  services

currently provided by the Support Unit?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

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 354/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1847/98

by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Invitation to tender of 23 February 1998 for the supply of breeding cattle to Bosnia- Herzegovina (Ref.

IA:D-1:Hdl D(98))

1. With regard to animal health, the above-mentioned invitation to tender specifies that the animals selected
for Bosnia-Herzegovina should be tested for tuberculosis 60 days before shipment and for other diseases 30 days
before shipment. Is the Commission aware that  animals are  being  selected  without any  tests  for  tuberculosis
being required for the animal health certificate and that blood tests 30 days before shipment are no longer being
carried out?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1807/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Operation of European Studies Centres in Greece
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, education, language teaching, operational programme, private education, vocational training

C 31/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.2.1999

(1999/C 31/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Operation of European Studies Centres in Greece

(11 June 1998)

Provision has been made under the National Programme for Foreign Language teaching, which is funded via
subprogramme 1 (cid:145)General and Technical Education(cid:146) of the programme for (cid:145)Education and Basic Vocational
Training(cid:146), in particular measure 1.1.c (cid:145)Foreign Languages(cid:146), for the establishment and operation in Greece of
European Language Centres (ELC).

1.

How many Centres are involved and what is the timetable for bringing them into operation?

2.
Bearing in mind that private schools for teaching foreign languages › known as frontisteria › also operate
in Greece, will their students be able to take part on an equal footing with the ELCs(cid:146) students in the procedures for
awarding language-proficiency certificates which the ELCs are to organize in accordance with the technical
description of the measure?

(1999/C 31/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: European Language Centres

(18 June 1998)

Two years ago the Monitoring Committee of the Second Community Support Framework approved the
establishment of European Language Centres within the framework of the Operational Programme for Education
and Initial Vocational Training (EPEAEK). This institution, which will not only promote the learning of foreign
languages among young people, but also help disseminate the less widely-spoken languages of the EU and thus
foster multiculturalism, has yet to become operational.

Will the Commission say why this institution has not yet got off the ground and what measures it intends to take
to change this state of affairs?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1807/98 and E-1946/98
given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Measure 1.1c of the operational programme for (cid:145)Education and initial training(cid:146) › which was approved by the
programme(cid:146)s monitoring committee in May 1996 › pertains to the establishment and operation of European
language centres (ELC) in Greece.

The initial planning referred to the establishment of 33 ELCs which should have been put into operation
progressively starting in 1997. However, because of numerous problems encountered during the implementation
(e.g. lack of a suitable institutional framework, absence of a body responsible for the establishment and operation
of the ELCs), the measure never got off the ground. Therefore, the ministry of education intends to propose a
drastic reduction of the measure.

As the ELCs are not yet operational, the issue of procedures for awarding language proficiency certificates has
not been addressed.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1217/98 of 11 June 1998 fixing production refunds on cereals and rice
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cereals, production refund, rice

L 167/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12. 6. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1217/98

of 11 June 1998

fixing production refunds on cereals and rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992, on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 7
(3) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of
22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the
market in rice (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No
192/98 (4), and in particular Article 7 (2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1722/93 of 30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for
the arrangements concerning production refunds in the
cereals and rice sectors (5), as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1011/98 (6), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 establishes the
conditions for granting the production refund; whereas
the basis for the calculation is established in Article 3 of
the said Regulation; whereas the refund thus calculated
must be fixed once a month and may be altered if the
price of maize and/or wheat changes significantly;

Whereas the production refunds to be fixed in this Regu-
lation should be adjusted by the coefficients listed in the
Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 to establish
the exact amount payable;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The refund referred to in Article 3 (2) of Regulation
1.
(EEC) No 1722/93, expressed per
starch
extracted from maize, wheat, potatoes, rice or broken rice,
shall be ECU 40,98 per tonne.

tonne of

The refund referred to in Article 3 (3) of Regulation
2.
(EEC) No 1722/93, expressed per
starch
extracted from barley and oats, shall be ECU 40,98 per
tonne.

tonne of

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 June 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 June 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.
(4) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 159, 1. 7. 1993, p. 112.
(6) OJ L 145, 15. 5. 1998, p. 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1791/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Social dialogue and police measures
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, Greece, commercial bank, police, social conflict, social dialogue

C 50/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

requirements on the limitation of exposure of workers to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation. In addition, the
Commission has now proposed a Council recommendation on the limitation of exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields 0 Hertz (Hz) › 300 Gigahertz (GHz) (7).

(1) OJ C 102, 3.4.1998.
(2) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997.
(3) OJ C 173, 17.6.1996.
(4) OJ C 60, 26.2.1997.
(5) OJ C 356, 25.11.1996.
(6) OJ C 77, 18.3.1993.
(7) COM(98) 268 final.

(1999/C 50/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1791/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Social dialogue and police measures

In his answer (dated 19.1.1998) to my Written Question No 3605/97 (1) Commissioner Flynn states: (cid:145)The
dialogue between the social partners greatly contributes to shaping the economic and social environment and has
become one of the cornerstones of our model of society.(cid:146) In the same answer he goes on to say: (cid:145)...the
Luxembourg guidelines (21.11.1997) recommend close involvement of the social partners at all stages of the
process.(cid:146) This is intended to promote social cohesion.

The Greek Government has refused to hold a dialogue with employees regarding the sale of the (cid:145)Ioniki Trapeza(cid:146)
(the Ionian Bank), a subsidiary of the (cid:145)Emboriki Trapeza(cid:146) (Commercial Bank), thereby violating the principle of
the social dialogue, and on 24 May 1998 sent in the police to deal with bank employees at the Computer Centre in
Piraeus, thereby opting for direct confrontation.

Will the Commission give its official views on this unprecedented action by the Greek Government which
constitutes a flagrant violation of the commitments it has assumed within the framework of the EU regarding the
social dialogue?

(1) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

The Commission has the task of promoting the social dialogue at Community level. These responsibilities are set
out in Article 118b of the EC Treaty and in Article 3 of the Agreement on Social Policy.

The Commission has also put forward numerous proposals for fleshing out the Charter of the Fundamental Social
Rights of Workers. For example, it takes the view that worker information and consultation form an essential part
of a very widely shared culture of industrial relations in Europe.

The model of industrial relations that the Commission is responsible for promoting at European level therefore
draws its inspiration from an approach based on dialogue and partnership.

As regards the events mentioned by the Honourable Member relating to an industrial dispute at national level,
they are the responsibility of the Member States alone. The Commission is therefore not in a position to judge
national practices in these areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1811/98 by Ulla SANDBÆK to the Commission. Report on Zimbabwe's Campfire Programme by the IEPC
Date: 1998-06-11
Institutions: European Parliament, SANDBAEK
Subjects: EU programme, Zimbabwe, development aid, environmental protection, poverty, project evaluation, report, rural development













EUR-Lex - 91998E1811 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1811

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1811/98 by Ulla SANDBÆK to the Commission. Report on Zimbabwe's Campfire Programme by the IEPC  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0090 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/98by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission(11 June 1998)Subject: Report on Zimbabwe's Campfire Programme by the IEPCThe Zimbabwe Campfire programme is a well known African Community-based development initiative which has been commended for its results in terms of improvement of rural livelihoods, poverty alleviation and the conservation of wildlife and its habitats in Zimbabwe.Recently, a US-based group called "Indigenous Environment Policy Centre" (IEPC) produced a 48 page report entitled "The Case of Zimbabwe's Campfire programme: Rhetoric or Reality" in which the programme is literally mangled.Is the Commission aware of the IEPC report?If so, does the Commission agree with its content and recommendations?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission(25 June 1998)The Commission is aware of the report made by the Indigenous environmental policy centre (IEPC). Although never directly involved with the Campfire programme, the Commission has followed the programme in those geographical areas where the Commission has undertaken rural development projects.Due to methodological shortcomings, the Commission does not consider the IEPC report as conclusive evidence of success or failure of the Campfire programme in Zimbabwe.The IEPC report is based on a methodology as well as a basic framework for financial and economic analysis that would not be acceptable for a donor evaluation of a development project. The report seems to be based on selective interviews with illegal squatters and an exclusive focus on problems that have faced the Campfire programme. The report's financial analysis is of insufficient depth to challenge existing evidence that communities do receive a meaningful percentage of profits and that investment in wildlife management has increased due to the Campfire programme.The failure of a development programme cannot be demonstrated by simply listing the problems it faces. In this context, the report fails to question what the current situation would be without the programme, a question that an evaluation would normally address. For instance, there is evidence that total loss of wildlife habitat in Campfire areas is much smaller when compared to the general level of wildlife habitat loss in the Zambezi valley. Furthermore, a programme of this nature does not only have quantitative results, but entails a number of processes (e.g. empowerment of local communities or increased levels of self-determination) that would also need to be analysed.