do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2314/98 by Riccardo NENCINI to the Commission. Closure of the district magistrate's court of Borgo San Lorenzo
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, NENCINI
Subjects: Tuscany, cessation of trading, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal system, national law, ordinary court of law

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/155

It has been a long standing policy of the Union to urge the Chinese authorities to respect the basic human rights of
the people of Tibet and to help preserve their distinctive culture and way of life. One of the Union(cid:146)s main
objectives has been to encourage dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dala(cid:239) Lama in order to secure
a lasting solution to the tensions which exist between the two sides.

In view of the observations made by the troika heads of mission, further reflection is now underway to determine
how this policy can be best updated to most effectively create the right conditions for dialogue and reconciliation
and to promote the interests of the inhabitants of Tibet.

(1999/C 13/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Thalassaemia

Does the Commission have any information about the prevalence of Thalassaemia in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 1998)

The Commission does not have the information requested.

(1999/C 13/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Closure of the district magistrate(cid:146)s court of Borgo San Lorenzo

A decision has recently been taken to close the magistrate(cid:146)s court at Borgo San Lorenzo (Florence). This decision
is unwarranted (not least in view of the Italian Government(cid:146)s new determinations in this area) because the court
covers a very wide area (over 1127 km2) with 56 000 inhabitants (the law requires a minimum of 50 000) and the
closure of the court cannot be justified on the basis of the volume of the court(cid:146)s judicial activities.

The withdrawal of this service has had considerable drawbacks for the local population.

In view of the new Community orientations in the area of the reform of the judicial system, can the Commission
express an opinion in order to allow the decision to be reviewed?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, since the entry into force of the Treaty on European
Union, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters has been a matter of common interest for the Member
States. However, no provision has been made for European action relating to the organisation of the courts in the
Member States.

Each Member State retains the sovereign power to decide on the number and location of courts in its territory on
the basis of domestic considerations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2274/98 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. Hypermarkets and the decline of city centres
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: aid to undertakings, competitiveness, elderly person, restriction on competition, small retailer, social problem, socially disadvantaged class, suburban area, supermarket, urban centre

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 50/141

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2251/98, E-2252/98, E-2253/98, E-2254/98,
E-2255/98, E-2256/98, E-2257/98, E-2258/98, E-2259/98, E-2260/98, E-2261/98, E-2262/98,
E-2263/98, E-2264/98 and E-2265/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 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.

(1999/C 50/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Cost of the parliamentary system

Sector IV of the German Bundestag(cid:146)s research service produced a document on 24 February 1998 under reference
number WF IV › 4/98 which calculated (cid:145)the cost of the parliamentary systems of the USA and the Federal
Republic of Germany(cid:146).

Is the Commission able to make a similar comparison of the cost of the parliamentary system of the European
Union itself, on the one hand with, and on the other hand without, inclusion of the language services, on the basis
of the figures available from 1993 onwards for the relevant financial years?

If so, what is the outcome of this comparison?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1660/98 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 154.

(1999/C 50/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Hypermarkets and the decline of city centres

Is the Commission aware of the increasing number of local shops in inner city areas (such as those in Liverpool)
which are closing because of the growth of supermarkets and out-of-town shopping centres?

Is it aware that old people and people who have no cars find it difficult to travel to these hypermarkets to make
their essential purchases?

Does the Commission consider that such social costs should be taken into account when deciding whether to
allow such hypermarkets?

What steps is the Commission taking to find out the facts concerning this problem and to propose means by which
the difficulties can be alleviated?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2292/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Beef prices
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: average price, beef, farming sector, member country

C 354/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

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

(17 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.

(98/C 354/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Beef prices

Can the Commission state what the average market price for beef was, as paid to farmers in the different states of
the EU, last month (or the most recent month for which the figures are available)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table containing
the information requested.

(98/C 354/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Sheepmeat and lamb imports into the EU

Can the Commission provide figures on the quantities and value of sheepmeat and lamb imported into the EU last
year and from which countries these imports originated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2278/98 by Robert EVANS to the Commission. Waste returned to product producers and sellers
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: EVANS, European Parliament
Subjects: computer equipment, consumer behaviour, consumer information, electronic equipment, packaging, preparation for market, producer's liability, waste, waste management, waste recycling













EUR-Lex - 91998E2278 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2278

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2278/98 by Robert EVANS to the Commission. Waste returned to product producers and sellers  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2278/98by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission(22 July 1998)Subject: Waste returned to product producers and sellersWould the Commission advise me of any European legislation or recommendations which require or encourage consumers to return waste from products they have purchased to the producers or sellers of those products?I am aware, for example, that certain companies producing ink cartridges for printers and fax machines enable consumers to return the cartridges free of charge for the purposes of recycling. Is the Commission involved in any such schemes for this or other types of waste (packaging), or in encouraging the same?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(16 September 1998)Producer responsibility schemes exist in certain Member States for a number of waste streams, such as packaging waste in Germany, end of life electrical and electronic equipment in the Netherlands. In view of the environmental and economic advantages linked to producer responsibility this principle was introduced at Community level by the Community strategy for waste management(1). This was endorsed by the Parliament in its Resolution of 14 November 1996 on the Community strategy for waste management.To make the principle of producer responsibility work, the consumer has an important role to play. It is up to him to make the wastes available to the producer. Accordingly, the concept of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste(2) implies the participation of the consumer. This is also true for the Commission proposal for a directive on end of life vehicles(3).As for the sector explicitly mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission work programme for 1998 foresees the adoption of a Commission initiative on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Information technology (IT) equipment, including fax machines, would be part of the scope of such a measure, as well as various kinds of consumables, such as cartridges. This legislation should allow consumers to return such equipment and components free of charge for the purposes of recycling.(1) COM(96) 399 final.(2) OJ L 365, 21.12.1994.(3) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2299/98 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Measures to prevent depopulation
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MATIKAINEN-KALLSTROEM
Subjects: EU programme, European Union, Structural Funds, depopulation, economic development, financing, less-favoured region, regional policy, rural region

15.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 297/11

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The average price in ECU per 100 kilogramme paid in each Member State to farmers for lamb carcasses in May
1998 (1) is as follows:

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

380,1
361,5
351,3
358,6
302,0
381,6
331,7
353,2
380,1
370,7
386,2
319,4
178,9
382,6
383,3

(1)

Latest definitive figures.

(1999/C 297/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: EU beef exports to third countries

Can the Commission provide figures to show the total amount of beef exported from the EU to third countries
over the last three years and state what was the average amount of export refunds paid per kg?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Exports of beef during the last three years were 1 199 255 tonnes carcase weight in 1995, 1 103 951 tonnes in
1996 and 1 050 034 tonnes in 1997.

Export refunds for beef and live animals are fixed at least every three months and published in the Official
journal. The export refund paid on beef is differentiated and the rate varies according to destination. The
present refund level paid for live animals other than pure-bred breeding animals to the destinations with the
highest refunds are ECU 52,00 per 100 kilogramme live weight for male cattle, while for fresh meat of male
adult bovine animals the refund rate is ECU 110,50 per 100 kilogramme carcase weight. For fresh meat of
male adult bovine animals the refund rate has varied between ECU 110,50 per 100 kilogramme to ECU 169,00
per 100 kilogramme during the last three years.

(1999/C 297/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2299/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Measures to prevent depopulation

(22 July 1998)

In the EU there are regions whose development is seriously threatened by depopulation. These include the EU’s
northern peripheral regions. The population becomes concentrated in the cities and conurbations, where even
greater social problems then develop.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2300/98 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Research into the use of asbestos
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MATIKAINEN-KALLSTROEM
Subjects: asbestos, consultancy, economic consequence, environmental protection, marketing restriction, public health, substitute product, toxic substance













EUR-Lex - 91998E2300 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2300

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2300/98 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Research into the use of asbestos  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0054 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/98by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission(22 July 1998)Subject: Research into the use of asbestosThe Commission has carried out a study on the technical and economic consequences of the use of alternative materials [to asbestos]. What were the results of this investigation? Do they cast any additional light on the use of asbestos and its alternative materials? When can we expect a proposal for a directive banning the use of asbestos?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission(21 September 1998)The study mentioned by the Honourable Member "The implications of replacing asbestos cement products and the availability of alternatives" was carried out by a consultant (Environmental Resources Management or ERM) at the request of the Commission.The Commission asked ERM to assess the economic and socio-economic implications of a possible Community wide ban on asbestos cement products (ERM were asked to concentrate on the impact in Greece, Spain and Portugal, the three Member States most likely to be effected by a ban because they still have significant asbestos-cement industries) and to identify all present day applications of chrysotile asbestos and assess whether there are alternatives for each of these applications which are safer and which offer adequate performance.The conclusions of both parts of the study will form an important input into the Commission's forthcoming proposal for a directive to ban chrysotile asbestos. In particular the study will enable the Commission and Member States to consider appropriate exceptions to a ban and the effect of temporary derogations.ERM have produced a draft final report for the Commission, but this has not yet been made available publicly to the Member States or other interested parties because there are still some information gaps and final editing to be completed. However, the results of the study will be available shortly and will be sent to Member States within the next few months.In addition to this work on the economic implications of a ban, the Commission has also sought the scientific advice of the independent scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE) on the relative health risks posed by chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes. The opinion of the SCTEE is also expected within the next few months.The draft directive will be presented to Member States as soon as these two elements have been finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2289/98 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. INTERREG drought programme for Spain
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: EAGGF, EU financing, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Spain, drought

C 182/4

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

Once the adjustment of vineyards to the new market conditions has taken place, it is clear that, over time,
expenditure will be favourably influenced.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.
(2) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994.
(3) COM(97) 2000 final.
(4) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.
(5) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998.

(1999/C 182/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Aid adjustments and the COM in olive oil

(22 July 1998)

Does the most recent reform of the COM in olive oil approved by the Council of Ministers for Agriculture at its
meeting in Luxembourg from 22 to 25 June 1998, or any other provision in force, prevent national
governments from making adjustments to the aid earmarked for olive oil producers on socioeconomic,
employment, environmental or other grounds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The compromise on olive oil reached by the Council on 25 June 1998 and implemented by Council
Regulation (EC) 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the common organisation
of the markets in oils and fats (1) introduces the most pressing measures to avert the greatest difficulties likely
to face farmers and other operators.

More basic measures are planned as from 1 November 2001.

In this context, and in view of the difficulties involved in monitoring different levels of aid for produce in free
circulation, no provision has been made for differentiating aid on the basis of different relevant criteria.

Generally speaking, the Commission has proposed to introduce differentiation for all direct aid to producers as
part of the Agenda 2000 reforms.

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

(1999/C 182/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Interreg drought programme for Spain

In view of the fact that the Interreg drought programme for Spain has been adopted with funding of ECU 107
million from the ERDF and the EAGGF, and in order to allow a comparison to be made with the way in which
the case of the Alqueva reservoir (which has received a lower level of ERDF funding) was dealt with, would the
Commission provide information regarding the terms and conditions under which the above funding was
provided?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2294/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Pork prices
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: average price, common price policy, disclosure of information, pigmeat

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/171

(98/C 386/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Pork prices

Can the Commission state what the average market price for pork was, as paid to farmers in the different states of
the EU, last month (or the most recent month for which the figures are available)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a table containing
the information requested.

(98/C 386/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: State aid

The cooperative I.P.T. based at Scarperia (Florence) submitted an application for funding under Law 49/85
(known as the Marcora law) in respect of which approximately L 189 000 000 was set aside in June 1997
(minimum), before the said law was challenged by DG IV of the European Commission on the grounds that it
constituted state aid. In November 1997, the government drew up a decree amending Law 49/85 to reflect the
remarks issued by the Community authorities. The resolutive opinion of the competent DG on the legislative
decree has not yet been made known and consequently measures cannot be taken quickly to safeguard the 500 or
more jobs affected.

Will the Commission, and the relevant departments, act quickly to make known its definitive opinion on the
decree in question?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

At its weekly meeting on Wednesday 15 July, the Commission decided not to raise any objection to the aid in
question, i.e. No 26/98 (Law 49/85 or the (cid:145)legge Marcora(cid:146)).

(98/C 386/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Development aid

Can the Commission indicate the amount of development aid and food aid (both public and private) granted to
developing countries by the individual Member States of the EU over the last three years.
98/495/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Greece (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/4) (Only the Greek text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, animal product, health risk, hormone, live animal, veterinary legislation

L 223/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 8. 98

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 July 1998

approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live
animals and animal products presented by Greece

(notified under document number C(1998) 2166/4)

(Only the Greek text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(98/495/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April
1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and res-
idues thereof in live animals and animal products and
repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and
Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in par-
ticular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1)
thereof,

Whereas Greece forwarded to the Commission, in a docu-
ment dated 27 June 1997, a plan specifying the national
measures to be implemented during 1998 for the detec-
tion of certain substances and residues thereof in live
animals and animal products; whereas that plan was
amended by a document dated 30 January, 12 March and
in accordance with the Commission’s
15 May 1998,
request, bringing it into line with the requirements of
Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of
it
complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular
Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

this plan has shown that

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary
Committee,

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and
substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC
in live animals and animal products presented by Greece
is hereby approved.

Article 2

Greece shall adopt the laws, regulations and administra-
tive provisions necessary to implement the plan referred
to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.