do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2172/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Castor shipments in breach of EU law
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, application of EU law, health risk, ionising radiation, nuclear safety, occupational safety, public health, radiation protection, radioactive waste, transport of dangerous goods

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/51

(1999/C 96/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Castor shipments in breach of EU law

Can the Commission say what action it will take following the violation by Member States of EU legislation on
radiation protection, namely Council Directives 92/3/Euratom (1) of 3 February 1992 and 96/29/Euratom (2) of
13 May 1996, in the case of the Castor shipments?

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.
(2) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

It should be noted that Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the
protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation will
only come into effect in May 2000. Directives 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980 (1) and 84/467/Euratom of
3 September 1984 (2) remain valid until that time. However, the Commission has no evidence of any breach of the
provisions of any of these three directives or of Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision
and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community.

As to possible future actions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement in the Plenary
session of the Parliament of 17 June 1998 (3).

(1) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.
(2) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.
(3) Verbatim report of proceedings 17 June 1998, provisional edition, p. 20.

(1999/C 96/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects

The report drawn up following the quality control of projects carried out under the second CSF concludes that
nearly half of the regional development projects jointly funded by the EU are technically deficient and will have
to be rectified or even redone because they were carried out on the basis of faulty studies or using sub-standard
materials or do not comply with the stipulations of the contract.

The report states that sample quality controls of materials revealed that about 50 % of contractors had not
complied with specifications. This applied to all materials except asphalt, for which the figure rose to around
70 %.

Is this information correct and what does the Commission intend to do to ensure that measures are taken at
government level to compel the contractors responsible to carry out the necessary alterations or the entire project
again in order to comply with their contractual obligations, wherever these have been breached?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2178/98 by Angela SIERRA GONZÁLEZ to the Commission. Sects in the EU
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, SIERRA GONZALEZ
Subjects: Canary Islands, Treaty on European Union, freedom of association, freedom of opinion, religious sect













EUR-Lex - 91998E2178 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2178

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2178/98 by Angela SIERRA GONZÁLEZ to the Commission. Sects in the EU  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2178/98by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: Sects in the EUThe Spanish police recently discovered the presence in the Canary Islands of a group of members of the sect known as the "Order of the Solar Temple".This group of persons, most of them German, intended to commit suicide on the island before the supposed "end of the world" arrived.This event has highlighted the existence of a proliferation of "self-destructive" sectarian groups on the eve of the new millennium, in addition to those sects which proselytize for their leaders' personal gain.Among the Spanish regions, the Canary Islands have one of the largest concentrations of such groups, which are estimated to number some 300 in the Canaries and approximately 3000 in the whole of Spain. The total number of members of such groups in Spain is over 250 000.The growing scale of the problem makes it necessary to adopt methods impacting on the origins of such behaviour and of organizations which take advantage of the right of free association to proselytize and "brainwash" their members.However, such an approach has to be combined with an absolute guarantee of the right of every individual to freedom of association and freedom of belief.Is the Commission aware of the events referred to and the relationship of the group concerned to the "Order of the Solar Temple" sect?What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent the proliferation of such "self-destructive" groups in the EU?Does the Commission consider it necessary to adopt legislation at international level to prevent the multiplication of such groups in the EU?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission(17 September 1998)The Commission has not officially been informed of the events mentioned by the Honourable Member.Appropriate measures could possibly be taken under Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union to improve judicial cooperation and police co-operation in this issue. However, according to the provisions of Title VI as they currently stand, such measures at the level of the Union would have to be initiated by the Member States. The Commission has no right of initiative in this field.Moreover, the activities of these groups are subject to relevant applicable national law, for example in the areas of taxes, family law and labour law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2128/98 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Commission. United Kingdom v Commission, C-106/96
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, MENDEZ DE VIGO
Subjects: Community budget, EU action, United Kingdom, budgetary expenditure, human rights, judgment of the Court (EU), legal basis, social policy













EUR-Lex - 91998E2128 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2128

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2128/98 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Commission. United Kingdom v Commission, C-106/96  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0005 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2128/98by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: United Kingdom v. Commission, C-106/96The judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 that certain Commission expenditure was illegal because it lacked a legal basis, has had repercussions for a large number of EU programmes and actions, especially in the social and human rights spheres. In its judgment, the Court stated that only non-significant actions could be undertaken without the prior adoption of a legal basis.What does the Commission understand by non-significant actions?How does it propose to react to this situation?What future strategy does it intend to pursue in the light of this judgment?Will it seek an interinstitutional agreement on this matter?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2113/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Subsidies for EU wine producers
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, KINNOCK
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, common organisation of markets, producer organisation, product quality, production aid, production improvement, production policy, redirection of production, regulation of agricultural production, viticulture

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/39

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that on 22 June 1998 a corrigendum was made to the
vacancy notice to which he refers, to the effect that a university degree was required in order to apply for the
temporary A7-5 post involving the administrative duties in question.

The Staff Regulations provide that for in order to gain access to category A, (cid:145)a university education or equivalent
professional experience(cid:146) are required, and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training is
bound by that provision.

(1999/C 96/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for EU wine producers

How does the Commission justify increasing subsidies for EU wine producers?

(1999/C 96/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU wine subsidies and agricultural reform

Is the proposal to increase subsidies for wine producers likely to be inconsistent with a commitment to liberalize
the agricultural trade?

(1999/C 96/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU wine subsidies

How does the Commission justify increased subsidies for EU wine producers in the context of its consistent
opposition to state aid for airlines, steel, textiles, etc? Is wine a special case deserving protection from
competition?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2113/98, E-2115/98 and E-2116/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The Honourable Member puts three questions concerning Community expenditure under the common
organisation of the market in wine. She should refer to a table indicating expenditure in the wine sector from
1989 to 1998 and to the financial statement accompanying the new reform proposal for the common organisation
of the market for the period 2001 to 2005, which are being sent to her directly as well as to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2109/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Curious notice of competition for CEDEFOP
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Cedefop, administrative personnel, administrator, competition (EU), diploma, professional experience, servant (EU), university













EUR-Lex - 91998E2109 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2109

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2109/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Curious notice of competition for CEDEFOP  


Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2109/98by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: Curious notice of competition for CedefopThe Commission's "Notices of Vacancies No DIV/1" of 15 June 1998 announced a vacancy for an A-grade official (a temporary A7-5 post) responsible for administrative duties. This notice is the latest of a number of curious announcements of vacant posts at Cedefop which are in breach of the Staff Regulations, sometimes subtly and at other times quite flagrantly. In the case in point, the basic qualification which Cedefop requires for appointment as an A7-5 Administrator is a "secondary-school leaving certificate" despite the fact that this post is a senior position and calls for a level of education substantially beyond completion of secondary school studies.This minimalist notice runs directly counter to Parliament's efforts to upgrade Cedefop staff and to the Commission's desire to improve the services offered by Cedefop.What action will the Commission take to ensure that Cedefop immediately implements the Staff Regulations in full and that its staff recruitment procedures are transparent, as it is imperative that these conditions are satisfied if the institution is to operate smoothly at its base in Thessaloniki?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(30 September 1998)The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that on 22 June 1998 a corrigendum was made to the vacancy notice to which he refers, to the effect that a university degree was required in order to apply for the temporary A7-5 post involving the administrative duties in question.The Staff Regulations provide that for in order to gain access to category A, "a university education or equivalent professional experience" are required, and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training is bound by that provision.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2418/98 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Monsanto and the terminator gene
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: genetics, legal action

5.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 31/143

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the claims made recently in the British media that some car manufacturers or dealers
are operating price fixing strategies in the United Kingdom.

In view of the national character of the alleged strategies, and in the light of the subsidiarity principle, it would
seem primarily to be for the United Kingdom authorities to verify whether these allegations are correct and, if so,
to take appropriate steps to deal with them.

(1999/C 31/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Monsanto and the terminator gene

What legal avenues are open to the EU to persuade or force Monsanto not to use its terminator gene?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

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

(1999/C 31/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/98

by Bartho Pronk (PPE) and Petrus Cornelissen (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Exclusion of merchant seamen from EU directives

(30 July 1998)

Merchant seamen are excluded from a large number of directives in the social security field, particularly those
concerning employment."

The following directives are some of those involved:

77/187/EEC (1)

Safeguarding of employees(cid:146) rights in the event of transfers of undertakings

80/987/EEC (2)

Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (certain national
exemptions where crews are covered by other forms of guarantee)

75/129/EEC (3)

Collective redundancies

94/45/EC (4)

European Works Councils in Community-scale undertakings and groups of undertakings
(option for Member States not to apply the Directive to Merchant Navy crews).

In the Working Time Directive, a special procedure is followed in order to include merchant seamen within the
scope of that Directive.

They all prompt the following questions:

1. Does not the Commission feel that it is unfair to exclude merchant seamen from social security directives?

2. What are the reasons for their exclusion?

3. Would the Commission be prepared to take action, similar to the procedure in the Working Time Directive,

to put an end to the exclusion of merchant seamen from other Directives?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2099/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/ EEC
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: Germany, bird, complaint to the Commission, hunting regulations, infringement of EU law, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife

C 13/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.1.1999

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 1998)

The aquaculture legislation in Denmark is both comprehensive and restrictive and is due to the general pollution
situation in Denmark where high standards for water treatment in general have been enforced through legislation.
For the freshwater fish farming industry, the national goal is to reduce the environmental impact by 50 %.
The basic philosophy of the legislation is to control the environmental impact from fish farming through limits on
maximum use of fish feeds. Each farm is allocated a certain annual amount of feed.

While this means of control is not used in other Member States, the EC Treaty does not prevent Member States
adopting measures to protect the environment which are stricter than those laid down in Community law.

(1999/C 13/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

(10 July 1998)

The legislation on hunting at Federal and Land level in the Federal Republic of Germany in many cases infringes
the European Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (1).

1.

2.

How many complaints on this subject have been lodged with the Commission to date?

How many infringement proceedings have been initiated by the Commission on this subject?

Has the European Court of Justice given judgments on this matter? If so, can the Commission indicate the

3.
date and case number of the judgments concerned?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

To date, 646 complaints reporting infringements of Directive 79/409/EC on the conservation of wild birds

1.
have been lodged with the Commission. There have been 54 complaints against Germany.

2.
The Commission began infringement proceedings following each complaint. Complaints about similar
facts were grouped together. At this point, three cases of infringement proceedings against Germany for failure to
meet obligations resulting from Directive 79/409/EC are still in motion.

Following legal action taken by the Commission for failure to meet obligations resulting from Directive

3.
79/409/EC, the Court gave judgment against Germany in the following cases:

› C-412/85 (judgment given on 17 September 1987)

› C-288/88 (judgment given on 3 July 1990)

› C-57/89 (judgment given on 28 February 1991)

› C-345/92 (judgment given on 23 March 1998) (Article 171 proceedings for failure to comply with the

judgment given on 17 September 1987).

Case C-121/97 was removed from the register after Germany took steps to comply with the Court(cid:146)s judgment.
This case had been opened on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty for failure to comply with the judgment of
3 July 1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2205/98 by Kirsten JENSEN to the Commission. Cooperation with the Mafia in Uzbekistan
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, JENSEN KIRSTEN
Subjects: Denmark, EBRD, EU investment, European undertaking, Mafia, Schengen Agreement, Uzbekistan, drug traffic

C 13/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.1.1999

(1999/C 13/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2205/98

by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Cooperation with the Mafia in Uzbekistan

According to a series of articles in Potitiken of 18 and 19 March 1998 Carlsberg, the large Danish brewery,
1.
is cooperating with Gafur Rakhimov, an Uzbek who is involved in the drugs trade and has close connections with
the Mafia in Uzbekistan. Gafur Rakhimov is allegedly blacklisted in all Schengen countries and therefore
prevented from obtaining a visa in the EU. Does the Commission consider it to be a problem that European
companies are cooperating in this way with people blacklisted under the Schengen agreement?

2.
There are reports that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is participating as an
investor in the project and therefore also cooperating with Gafur Rakhimov. Can the Commission confirm this?

3.

Is there any possibility of the Community intervening in this and similar cases?

Is the Commission considering taking the initiative to intervene either in this specific case or in similar

4.
cases?

5. Will the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty in any way change the answer to these questions?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 1998)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written
Question E-1075/98.

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

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 78.

(1999/C 13/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Situation in Tibet; EU policy on Tibet

Tibet(cid:146)s political and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, visited Finland on 19 June, eliciting assessments as to what
the EU might be able and willing to do to adopt a common policy on Tibet. This would be desirable, as it would
make it possible to intervene effectively in the human rights situation in Tibet and for the EU, in common with
others, to exert pressure on the negotiations between China and Tibet.

Does the Commission have any plans for adopting a common EU policy on Tibet, and if so, what would its broad
outlines be?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Commission recalls that Tibet has regularly been addressed in the framework of both the EU-China political
dialogue and the specific bilateral EU-China dialogue on human rights. There was a visit to Tibet 1-10 May 1998
by the troika heads of mission in Beijing.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2090/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Application of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 in Rome
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Latium, driving period, length of journey, means of public conveyance, occupational health, public transport, rest period, road transport, transport safety, urban transport













EUR-Lex - 91998E2090 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2090

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2090/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Application of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 in Rome  


Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0035 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2090/98by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: Application of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 in RomeThere have been various different interpretations of Council Regulation (EEC) 3820/85(1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport.While the regulation has been transposed into Italian law through Article 174 of the Highway Code, Atac/Cotral, the public transport company of Rome municipality, regularly disregards the rules guaranteeing the safety of operators and maximum journey times on the grounds that the regulation is not applicable in town but only for journeys outside.This means that there are no proper rules governing the safety of Atac drivers in Rome or others, driving periods, breaks, rest periods and periods for physical and psychophysical recovery.Can the Commission answer the following questions:1. Have new directives or regulations been adopted on the subject since 1985?2. Does the regulation apply to driving in towns and metropolitan areas?3. Does it apply to drivers who drive a total of far more kilometres in successive journeys even though each journey is less than 50 km?4. Has the regulation been transposed in other countries and, if so, how is it interpreted in similar cases?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission(16 September 1998)There have been no new directives or regulations which have directly impinged on the issue raised by the Honourable Member since 1986.The exclusions and derogations within Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 do not specifically prohibit its application to urban or metropolitan areas. However Article 4(3) of the Regulation clearly states that the Regulation's provisions do not apply to regular passenger transport services where the route covered by the service is under 50 kilometres. In practice, therefore, the majority of urban passenger transport services are, in effect, excluded. Article 4(3) also clearly does not allow the cumulative total of driver journeys to be taken into account when determining whether the Regulation should apply.The Regulation is directly applicable and provides a common set of rules for all Member States to administer. As this particular exclusion is precise, the Commission is not aware of any Member State holding a different interpretation of its provision.(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.