do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2241/98 by Allan MACARTNEY Human rights in China
Date: 1998-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: China, EU action, European Union, UN convention, human rights, political prisoner

C 320/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

(1999/C 320/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Welfare of laying hens

Can the Commission confirm whether the provisions of Directive 88/166/EEC (1) have been implemented by
all Member States and how many on-the-spot controls to verify compliance with the Directive have been
carried out by Commission inspectors?

(1) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

According to the information the Commission has received from the Member States, all have implemented
Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7 March 1998 complying with the judgment of the Court of justice in Case
131/86 (annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages). The Commission has, however, recently received a
complaint from a trade association alleging that the Directive is not correctly enforced in some Member States.
This complaint is currently being investigated.

In the field of animal welfare, the veterinary inspectors of the Commission have so far during their missions to
Member States concentrated their efforts on the protection of animals during transport (Council Directive
91/628/EEC (1)) and at the time of slaughter (Council Directive 93/119/EEC (2)).

It is, however, intended to extend the veterinary on-the-spot checks to other fields in the near future, such as
the well-being of laying hens kept in battery cages.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

(1999/C 320/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

Noting the stance taken by the European Union at the annual meeting of the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the Commission of the view
that the European Union is exerting optimum pressure on China to improve its human rights record?

What steps are being taken by the Commission to monitor abuses of human rights in China and has the
Commission taken any action with regard to relations with the Chinese authorities to promote the universality
of human rights?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

Since October 1997 the European Union and China have been engaged in a series of regular, detailed meetings
covering all aspects of human rights in China. Even the most sensitive issues have been covered by the dialogue
and it is supported by a range of Community funded projects designed to help reinforce the respect for human
rights in China. In addition, every opportunity is taken to raise the plight of individual dissidents imprisoned in
China.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2240/98 by Bertel HAARDER to the Commission. Staffing policy in the EU institutions
Date: 1998-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, HAARDER
Subjects: EU institution, European official, professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

C 31/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.2.1999

(1999/C 31/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/98

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

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Hunting of goosander

If in the near future the Bavarian Parliament adopts the proposal for a decision from its Environment Committee
of 25 June 1998, it will soon be possible to hunt goosander again in Bavaria. According to ornithological reports
there are, however, only 300 breeding pairs of this species in Bavaria. Mergus merganser appears on the Red List
in Germany as a particularly endangered species.

Under the provisions of Annex II of the Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) (1) the EU leaves authorization
1.
to hunt goosander to the discretion of the Member States. Does the Commission consider the goosander
population in Bavaria to be really large enough and the reasons for the authorization to hunt these rare birds
sufficient to be able to justify this step by the Bavarian Land government?

Is the Commission aware of the population trends for goosander in Germany, and in Bavaria in particular?

2.
If so, what information is available and how is it assessed by the Commission?

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

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

1.
According to Article 7 (3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds, bird species listed in its Annex II/2, which include mergus merganser, can only be hunted in those Member
States in respect of which they are indicated. As this species is not indicated for Germany its hunting there could
only therefore be allowed as a derogation in accordance with the conditions of Article 9 of this Directive.

2.
The Commission is aware of the conservation status of mergus merganser which is considered to be
favourable at the European level. However, this is not the situation in each Member State where it occurs as a
breeding species and according to the published scientific literature it has decreased in Germany. The German
authorities should consider this fact in any measures they take which may affect mergus merganser.

(1999/C 31/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/98

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Staffing policy in the EU institutions

Do the four categories of EU staff have the same entry grade and step and the same career profile irrespective of
whether they are employed by the Commission, Parliament or other EU institutions?

What percentage of staff at the Commission information offices in the European capitals are officials, temporary
staff and local staff?

What is the entry grade of heads of information offices and how long on average do they occupy their posts?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2216/98 by David THOMAS Welfare of laying hens
Date: 1998-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, THOMAS
Subjects: intensive livestock farming, laying poultry, protection of animals, veterinary inspection

C 320/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

(1999/C 320/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Welfare of laying hens

Can the Commission confirm whether the provisions of Directive 88/166/EEC (1) have been implemented by
all Member States and how many on-the-spot controls to verify compliance with the Directive have been
carried out by Commission inspectors?

(1) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

According to the information the Commission has received from the Member States, all have implemented
Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7 March 1998 complying with the judgment of the Court of justice in Case
131/86 (annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages). The Commission has, however, recently received a
complaint from a trade association alleging that the Directive is not correctly enforced in some Member States.
This complaint is currently being investigated.

In the field of animal welfare, the veterinary inspectors of the Commission have so far during their missions to
Member States concentrated their efforts on the protection of animals during transport (Council Directive
91/628/EEC (1)) and at the time of slaughter (Council Directive 93/119/EEC (2)).

It is, however, intended to extend the veterinary on-the-spot checks to other fields in the near future, such as
the well-being of laying hens kept in battery cages.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

(1999/C 320/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

Noting the stance taken by the European Union at the annual meeting of the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the Commission of the view
that the European Union is exerting optimum pressure on China to improve its human rights record?

What steps are being taken by the Commission to monitor abuses of human rights in China and has the
Commission taken any action with regard to relations with the Chinese authorities to promote the universality
of human rights?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

Since October 1997 the European Union and China have been engaged in a series of regular, detailed meetings
covering all aspects of human rights in China. Even the most sensitive issues have been covered by the dialogue
and it is supported by a range of Community funded projects designed to help reinforce the respect for human
rights in China. In addition, every opportunity is taken to raise the plight of individual dissidents imprisoned in
China.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1533/98 of 16 July 1998 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
Date: 1998-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, raw sugar, white sugar

17. 7. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 201/67

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1533/98

of 16 July 1998

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural
state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 19 (4) thereof,

Whereas the refunds on white sugar and raw sugar
exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1455/98 (3);

Whereas it
follows from applying the detailed rules
contained in Regulation (EC) No 1455/98 to the informa-
tion known to the Commission that the export refunds at

present in force should be altered to the amounts set out
in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, undenatured and
exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 1455/98 are hereby altered to the
amounts shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 July 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 16 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 193, 9. 7. 1998, p. 5.

L 201/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 7. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 16 July 1998 altering the export refunds on white sugar
and raw sugar exported in its unaltered state

ANNEX

Product code

1701 11 90 9100
1701 11 90 9910
1701 11 90 9950
1701 12 90 9100
1701 12 90 9910
1701 12 90 9950

Amount of refund

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

40,71
39,26

40,71
39,26

(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 91 00 9000

0,4425

1701 99 10 9100
1701 99 10 9910
1701 99 10 9950

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

44,25
43,84
43,84

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 99 90 9100

0,4425

(1) Applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %; if the yield is other than 92 %,
the refund applicable is calculated in accordance with the provisions of
Article 17a (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81.

(2) Fixing suspended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2689/85 (OJ L 255, 26. 9.
1985, p. 12), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3251/85 (OJ L 309, 21. 11.
1985, p. 14).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2208/98 by Ulrich STOCKMANN to the Commission. Community aid for the German Land of Saxony- Anhalt during 1997 (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, STOCKMANN
Subjects: EAGGF, EU aid, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Saxony-Anhalt, aid system, energy policy, environmental policy, exchange of information

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/57

It is not accurate to state that the above-mentioned Directives are inadequate, nevertheless the Commission shares
the opinion of the Honourable Member that there is a need for further legislative action to supplement and
complete, within a comprehensive Community framework, the existing national and Community provisions on
information and consultation of employees. That is why the Commission initiated the consultation process with
the social partners on a European framework for information and consultation in this regard.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.
(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(1999/C 96/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/98

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Community aid for the German Land of Saxony-Anhalt during 1997

What amounts of Community aid for the German Land of Saxony-Anhalt were approved and cancelled for which
measures and under which programmes for 1997:

1.

2.

3.

the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)?

the European Social Fund (ESF)?

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)?

4. Community research programmes?

5. Community energy programmes?

6. Community environmental programmes?

7. Community initiatives?

8.

other Community programmes?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Further to its answer of 11 September 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

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.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

(1999/C 96/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/98

by Jesœs Cabez(cid:243)n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Employment plan for Spain

Having studied Spain(cid:146)s action plan for jobs, what does the Commission regard as its most innovative aspects with
a view to creating jobs, increasing the activity rate or lowering the current rate of unemployment in Spain?