do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2095/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Operation of universities of other Member States in Greece
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, academic freedom, diploma, education policy, equivalence of diplomas, private education, public education, recognition of diplomas, university

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/169

(98/C 386/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/98

by Klaus H(cid:228)nsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen, North Rhine-Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission
indicate:

1.

the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community
programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Solingen from other budget lines since 1994 for
pilot projects, measures or › as direct allocations › universities, research establishments, undertakings and
other bodies,

2.

the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

(98/C 386/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/98

by Felipe Camis(cid:243)n Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Degree of compliance with Community law in the Member States

With reference to the above topic and, in particular, to the data for 1997 as compared with those for 1996, could
the Commission say at what rate directives are incorporated into national law in each of the 15 Member States?
How many reasoned opinions are produced and how many cases are referred to the Court of Justice?

Which are the sectors in respect of which the Commission has had to intervene most?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the 15th report on the monitoring of the application of
Community law (1), which was transmitted to Parliament on 27 May 1998 and contains all the information
necessary to answer the question.

(1) COM(98) 317 final.

(98/C 386/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2095/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Operation of universities of other Member States in Greece

(cid:145)Free Study Centres(cid:146) which collaborate with universities of other Member States of the European Union are
operating in Greece. Students at these centres follow courses in Greece during the first years and usually continue
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2120/98 by Antonios TRAKATELLIS to the Commission. Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, TRAKATELLIS
Subjects: Community support framework, EU law - national law, European Commission, Greece, application of EU law, cooperation policy, fraud, public works













EUR-Lex - 91998E2120(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2120(01)

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2120/98 by Antonios TRAKATELLIS to the Commission. Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/98by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission(30 June 1998)Subject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failingsThe report by the joint steering committee and recent press reports raise important questions about the proper implementation of projects undertaken in Greece within the framework of the Second Community Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund. In particular these reports note a number of violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship by the construction companies and attribute responsibility for projects worth a total of Drs 2 billion to the supervising bodies and the relevant ministries; the possibility of recovering the money is also being considered.Will the Commission say:1.   What violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship is it apprised of or have been otherwise detected, and which projects are concerned?2.   How is the implementation of projects monitored and to what extent is this monitoring adequate and effective?3.   Which bodies are responsible for the violations and what sanctions are provided for?4.   What measures are being proposed specifically to rectify omissions and also to avoid similar incidents in future?5.   How will it ensure the proper use of the funds set aside in the Community budget for the implementation of projects?Answer given by MrsWulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission(8 July 1998)The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2122/98 by David HALLAM to the Commission. Application of penalties: Regulation 1765/92
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, HALLAM
Subjects: aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, area of holding, farmer, management information system, sanction (EU), terms for aid, utilised agricultural area

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/149

(1999/C 13/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/98

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Measures to support beekeeping

Despite the increase in the number of beekeepers, beekeeping is still insufficiently regulated and is often left to
the generosity and courage of private operators who are forced to operate without incentives or technical
guidelines.

In some countries it is not considered to be an agricultural activity since it is not necessarily related to ownership
or possession of land, so that beekeepers are penalized from a fiscal, legal and economic point of view.

What Community initiatives have been or are to be taken to revive such an active sector of European agriculture
that is heavily penalized despite the increasing demand for honey?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Council recognised the importance of the beekeeping sector in July 1997, adopting, at the proposal of the
Commission, Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 Council Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 laying
down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey on general
application rules for the actions aiming at the improvement of production and of the marketing of honey (1).

The detailed rules on the national programmes aimed by the Council Regulation are fixed by the Commission at
Regulation (EC) 2300/97 (2), which has been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 758/98 of 3 April
1998 (3). The national programmes were approved by the Commission in March 1998.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997.
(2) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997.
(3) OJ L 105, 4.4.1998.

(1999/C 13/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2122/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Application of penalties: Regulation 1765/92

Regarding Regulation 1765/92 (1), is the Commission aware of the very heavy penalties applied when mistakes
have been made when claiming arable area payments, under the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control
System)?

In the United Kingdom we have found that many of these penalties have been applied even when it is clear that
these were genuine errors on the part of the producer. What flexibility can the Commission offer to assist these
affected producers?

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Commission Regulation (EEC) 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (1) provides for sanctions in
cases where farmers over-declare the area of land for the purpose of obtaining a subsidy, or where certain other
rules have not been respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1987/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Surveillance and telecommunications networks in Europe
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: State secret, United States, confidentiality, electronic mail, facsimile, protection of communications, secret service, telephone, transmission network













EUR-Lex - 91998E1987 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1987

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1987/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Surveillance and telecommunications networks in Europe  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0130 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/98by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission(30 June 1998)Subject: Surveillance and telecommunications networks in EuropeThere have been an increasing number of allegations in Europe that the American secret services are bugging European telephone, fax and telecommunications networks.In particular, the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights has debated the bugging of fax, telephone and E-mail in Europe; the report it drew up on this matter states that the information gathered in this way is passed on via satellite to Fort Meade in Maryland, USA, where it is processed by CIA experts. There are also the familiar allegations that during the GATT negotiations, the American side had received information about the EU's position, having gained access to the Commission's data-processing system.Will the Commission say what measures have been taken so far to prohibit the access of secret services to confidential information, given that this is an issue which involves the security of telecommunications in Europe and poses enormous problems both for ordinary citizens who feel insecure when they use the telephone or computer, and for the administration of the EU which seems to be the victim of constant surveillance and the bugging targeted at valuable information?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission(3 September 1998)The Commission has no evidence of any of these allegations.It nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests and continues to make stringent efforts to improve the security of its data networks, especially as regards e-mail communications. The Commission condemns any and all attempts to breach the confidentiality of information held or transmitted by the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2005/98 by Hartmut NASSAUER to the Commission. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, NASSAUER
Subjects: equidae, horsemeat, human nutrition, meat, quantitative restriction, veterinary drug, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91998E2005 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2005

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2005/98 by Hartmut NASSAUER to the Commission. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin  


Official Journal C 050 , 22/02/1999 P. 0124 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/98by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission(30 June 1998)Subject: Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal originCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2377/90(1) lays down a procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.The implementation of this regulation in practice raises the following questions:1. Does it follow from the Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits that medicinal products for animals generally lose their licences if they are not tested or if those limits are exceeded?2. Has account been taken of the fact that, because medicinal products for horses constitute such a small market, it is not worthwhile for manufacturers to conduct expensive pharmacological studies in order to renew their licences for such preparations, with the result that an increasing number of medicinal products are losing their licences?3. Is the Council aware that, consequently, non-food-producing horses are also being deprived of necessary medical treatment?4. Should not such animals be excluded, therefore, from the scope of the regulation, so that they can continue to be treated with medicinal products that exceed the permitted residue limits?5. Is account taken of the fact that, in some countries, it is only very rarely that horses are intended for consumption?6. Is it not necessary to distinguish between horses used for sport or recreation, the medical treatment of which should not be subject to restrictions, and horses for slaughter, the treatment of which should be so restricted?7. Would it not be possible for every horse to be classified either as a riding horse or a horse for slaughter?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission(22 July 1998)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No 1495/98 by Mr Kindermann(2).(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.(2) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2006/98 by Gunilla CARLSSON to the Commission. Obligations for cable operators (must-carry)
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: CARLSSON, European Parliament
Subjects: broadcasting, cable distribution, domestic market, freedom to provide services













EUR-Lex - 91998E2006 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2006

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2006/98 by Gunilla CARLSSON to the Commission. Obligations for cable operators (must-carry)  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0134 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2006/98by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission(30 June 1998)Subject: Obligations for cable operators (must-carry)In most European countries obligations exist for cable operators to distribute television and radio programmes. These obligations normally concern a limited number of public broadcasts. There now seems to be a trend to extend these obligations to include:1. national commercial programmes,2. pay television programmes and3. new thematic channels of public broadcasters.The effects of this extension might have an adverse effect on the functioning of the internal market and more particular the freedom to provide services.Could the Commission outline its views on the acceptability of (the extension of) such obligations in the light of the rules on the internal market and especially Article 59 of the Treaty?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(29 July 1998)The Commission has received complaints alleging that the establishment of certain must-carry rules by Member States creates obstacles for the free circulation of broadcasting services in the internal market. The Commission is evaluating these complaints, and has opened infringement proceedings in one case.In view of the assessment of the complaints the Commission will consider whether specific interpretative rules are required concerning the proportionality of any such national measures and their objectives (with regard to Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(1) and Article 59 of the EC Treaty). In addition, the Commission is preparing a questionnaire which will be circulated shortly to all interested parties.(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1990/98 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Measures in favour of the family and children
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: BANOTTI, European Parliament
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, family

C 135/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1979/98, E-2033/98, E-2064/98,
E-2079/98, E-2134/98 and E-2452/98
given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The extension of the contract of the head of the Centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM)
at the Joint research centre of Ispra, for a two-year period has been decided on the basis of technical and
managerial considerations. In the meantime, the Commission will do its best to maintain its commitments
and priorities to ECVAM.

The Commission remains fully committed to the validation of alternative methods as provided under
Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1).
Furthermore it is continuing to pursue its efforts to end animal tests in compliance with the requirements
of Directive 76/768/EC (2) as last modified by Directive 93/35/EC (3) relating to cosmetic products at the
earliest possible opportunity.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(3) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993.

(1999/C 135/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/98

by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Measures in favour of the family and children

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Commission in Case C-106/96 (12 May
1998), what action is the Commission taking, or does it propose to take, to ensure the implementation of
the projects to be funded from Item B3-4108: Measures in favour of the family and children?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

The Commission has decided to release part of the appropriations for item B3-4108 − Measures in favour
of the family and children − for 1998. Commitments totalling ECU 810 000 have been entered into to date.
Other projects totalling ECU 2,19 million could still be financed in the context of the production of a
report on population and of the execution of projects accepted by the Commission before 10 June 1998, for
which certain expectations have been created.

The possibility of financing these measures in future will be reviewed in the context of the interinstitu-
tional agreement on the legal bases and amendments introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty.

(1999/C 135/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs

In the USA there has been a debate in recent months on a draft law from the USDA laying down rules
governing the manufacture of organically farmed foodstuffs (USDA National Organic Program Proposal
Rule). The USDA proposal allowed the use of genetic engineering in products derived from organic
farming. It breached EU standards on 27 counts and the danger existed through the WTO, that genetically
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2017/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: United States, World Trade Organisation, agricultural production, biological standard, consumer protection, foodstuff, genetic engineering, organic farming, trade policy

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/129

(98/C 354/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs

In the USA there has been a debate in recent months on a draft law from the USDA laying down rules governing
the manufacture of organically farmed foodstuffs (USDA National Organic Program Proposal Rule). The USDA
proposal  allowed  the  use  of  genetic  engineering  in  products  derived  from  organic  farming.  It  breached  EU
standards on 27 counts and the danger existed through the WTO, that genetically manipulated foodstuffs could
end  up  on  the  European  market  having  been  declared  as  organic  foods  and  could  mislead  consumers.  In  the
meantime, this proposal has been withdrawn. It is nevertheless an example of how easily European standards can
be undermined in the context of international trade.

1.

2.

3.

Did the EU try in negotiations with the USA to modify this USDA proposal? If so, how?

Is a mutual recognition agreement between the USA and the EU planned for foodstuffs?

If so, on what standards is it to be based? Will the EU maintain its existing standards?

4. What  value  will  be  attached  to  environmental  and  consumer  interests  in  the  negotiations  on  the  New
Transatlantic Marketplace and/or the New Transatlantic Partnership (NTM and/or NTP)?

5.

To what extent are foodstuffs to be included in the NTM and/or NTP?

6. What kind of agreements are envisaged for foodstuffs in the NTM and/or NTP?

7. What sanctions are contemplated?

8.

Is the issue of genetically manipulated foodstuffs included?

9. What timescale does the Commission envisage for an NTM and/or NTP for foodstuffs?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

(98/C 354/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/98

by Klaus Ha¤nsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann, North Rhine- Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the
Commission indicate:

1. 

the  sum  of  EU  structural  resources  received  and  their  breakdown  by  Funds  and  the  various  Community
programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann from other
budget  lines  since  1994  for  pilot  projects,  measures  or  ›  as  direct  allocations  ›  universities,  research
establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2. 

the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1975/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Commission. Discriminatory charging for higher education
Date: 1998-06-30
Institutions: COATES, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, Scotland, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, higher education, school fees, university













EUR-Lex - 91998E1975 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1975

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1975/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Commission. Discriminatory charging for higher education  


Official Journal C 031 , 05/02/1999 P. 0108 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1975/98by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(30 June 1998)Subject: Discriminatory charging for higher educationThe United Kingdom authorities wish to charge tuition fees for the full four years of university courses in Scotland to students who come from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students from Scotland and other European Union countries will be charged fees for only three years.Do these discriminatory charges contravene any European directives, particularly those on freedom of movement and the single European market.Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(3 September 1998)Article 6 of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.This principle also extends to the free movement of services as enshrined in Article 59 of the EC Treaty, which covers not just persons providing services but also the persons for whom the services are intended.However, the situation described by the Honourable Member does not constitute discrimination that is incompatible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty. Students from other Member States wishing to study at a Scottish university would not seem to be disadvantaged in relation to students from the United Kingdom. The difference in treatment between Scottish students and students from other UK regions is a purely internal matter for the United Kingdom and is not covered by Community law.