do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2618/98 by Sören WIBE to the Commission. Team Europe
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WIBE
Subjects: EU policy, budget, consultancy, dissemination of EU information, information, services company

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/125

Finally, the Member States are working in close cooperation with Interpol in the fight against child

4.
pornography.

(1) OJ L 342, 31.12.1996, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 63, 4.3.1997, p. 2.

(1999/C 96/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2617/98

by S(cid:246)ren Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Commission policy on public opinion

In the Swedish Government, for example, it is considered impossible in principle for a member of the government
to express a view which contradicts the political line adopted by the Swedish Government.

What is the position within the Commission? Can a commissioner take a different political line from the one
adopted by the Commission as a whole ahead of a government conference, for example? Can a commissioner
take a liberal line on drugs if the Commission as a whole does not advocate such a policy?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1998)

The Commission would point out that it adopts its positions in accordance with the conditions laid down in the
Treaties. They reflect the will of the Members of the Commission as a whole, and only these are binding on them.

The Commission has had the occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members of
Parliament (1) that its Members exercise a political function and, while honouring the obligations imposed by
the function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

(1) For example, reply from President Rey to oral question No 10/68 by Mr Habib-Deloncle, and Commission replies to Written Questions

Nos 44/83 by Mr Bendebien, 1682/85 by Mr Vandemeulebroucke, and 1404/97 by Mr Pasty, OJ C 55, 10.3.1986; OJ C 391, 23.12.1997.

(1999/C 96/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2618/98

by S(cid:246)ren Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Team Europe

What is the annual budget for the Commission(cid:146)s Team Europe information activities? Can the Commission
account for the content of the estimate of expenditure for Team Europe?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The global annual budget for Team Europe according to the contract with Deloitte and Touche as approved by the
Commission is ECU 956 413. This covers the running of the Team Europe information service. However, as the
contractor is only being paid for actual expenses, the budget for 1997-1998 is just above ECU 670 000. A copy of
the contract with Deloitte and Touche for support to the members of Team Europe is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to the Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2562/98 by Maren GÜNTHER to the Commission. Use of landmines in Kosovo
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, GUENTHER
Subjects: Kosovo, conventional weapon, humanitarian aid, violence, war

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/95

(1999/C 118/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: The deteriorating situation in West Papua (now Indonesian province of Irian Jaya)

Is the Council fully informed about the situation in Irian Jaya (Indonesia), where seven persons have been
killed by Indonesian forces since 1 July 1998 and scores of seriously wounded people taken to local
hospitals in Biak and Sorong in particular, for no other reason than having demonstrated in favour of more
autonomy and greater independence for their region?

Will the Commission ask the Indonesian government to clarify these acts of violence and report to the
European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Mar(cid:237)n on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission is, through reports from the Commission delegation to Indonesia, well aware of the
unrest in Irian Jaya, which has resulted in the tragic loss of lives and many injuries.

Within the limits of its competences, the Commission will continue to raise the issues of human rights with
the Indonesian government, in bilateral contacts as well as in international fora.

In addition, the Commission has recently taken the decision to support, together with the United Kingdom,
a human rights workshop, scheduled to take place in Jakarta at the end of October 1998.

(1999/C 118/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2562/98

by Maren G(cid:252)nther (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Use of landmines in Kosovo

What information does the Commission have about the recent laying of landmines, and, in particular, of
anti-personnel mines, in the disputed area of Kosovo?

What measures is the Commission seeking with a view to ensuring that the laying of landmines is halted?

Does the Commission intend to participate in mine-clearance programmes, once the political situation
allows it to do so?

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

(14 September 1998)

The Commission has no specific information on the use of anti-personnel landmines (APL) in Kosovo
although the use of such weapons would be a very unfortunate characteristic of the situation.

The Union, at the Cardiff European Council and at subsequent meetings of the General Affairs Council,
has expressed its condemnation of the violence in Kosovo, and confirmed a range of economic measures
aimed at ameliorating the situation. In relation to the humanitarian aspects, the Commission has been
active on the ground in Kosovo and in neighbouring states, in co-operation which other international
organisations.

Neither the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nor Albania are signatories of the Ottawa Convention to ban
APL and, as a general rule (there are exceptions) this is a precondition for Community assistance in
demining. In any case, the Commission would not support mine actions in an on-going conflict situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2589/98 by Herbert BÖSCH to the Council. School trips within the European Union
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: BOESCH, European Parliament
Subjects: EU visa policy, admission of aliens, educational institution, foreign national, simplification of formalities, teaching curriculum, tourism, travel

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/119

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission has absolutely no intention of introducing a ban on car advertising as erroneously reported in
some German newspapers.

In several Member States voluntary codes of conduct are applied which encourage advertising agencies and their
customers, the car industry, to limit advertisements that could be considered to be linked to dangerous behaviour
on the road. Various public discussions about the possibilities of applying such a voluntary code throughout
Europe may have led to misunderstanding on the part of some journalists, particularly those who did not take the
trouble to make enquiries to various voluntary organisations, public authorities and the Commission before
writing their stories.

(1999/C 96/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2588/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Unpublished declarations to minutes of Council meetings

Are there any declarations to the minutes of Council meetings that were not published in 1997 and 1998 and, if so,
how many and on what subjects?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

In 1997, 361 statements for the minutes of Council meetings at which legislative acts were adopted were

1.
published.

However, on 20 January 1997 when the Council adopted Directive 97/3/EC amending Directive 77/93/EEC on
protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products
and against their spread within the Community (1), one statement was not published.

In the first six months of 1998, 170 statements for the minutes of Council meetings at which legislative acts

2.
were adopted were published.

However, on 23 March 1998 when the Council adopted:

› a Council Decision on the conclusion on behalf of the Community of the Convention on Transboundary

Effects of Industrial Accidents, one statement was not published;

› a Council Decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on
long-range transboundary air pollution on further reductions of sulphur emissions, two statements were not
published.

As the Honourable Member can see, 99,72 % of statements were published in 1997 and 98,24 % in the first half of
1998.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 30.

(1999/C 96/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/98

by Herbert B(cid:246)sch (PSE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: School trips within the European Union

At present, school trips within the European Union made by classes which include pupils who are not nationals of
an EU Member State entail a disproportionate degree of bureaucracy and expense.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2619/98 by Sören WIBE to the Commission. Salaries of officials
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WIBE
Subjects: Community tax, EU Member State, Greece, appointment of staff, financing of the EU budget, pay, servant (EU), tax on employment income













EUR-Lex - 91998E2619 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2619

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2619/98 by Sören WIBE to the Commission. Salaries of officials  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2619/98by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Salaries of officialsPublic opinion in Sweden is shocked that Swedish citizens working at the Commission and Parliament information offices in Stockholm receive very high salaries while paying a much lower rate of tax than ordinary members of the public. In Sweden, this leaves the heads of the two information offices with higher salaries after tax than the Swedish Prime Minister.Should European Union officials based in their own countries not also pay tax in accordance with the tax regulations applying in those countries?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(22 September 1998)Under the terms of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities(1), officials are liable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Communities. The tax is deducted at source and the proceeds are paid into the Community budget. There are 14 tax rates ranging from 8 % to 45 % applied to consecutive salary bands.Officials are exempt from direct national income taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities. They pay, of course, indirect taxes (such as value added tax) according to national tax regimes.With specific reference to officials posted to Commission representations, Commission policy is to limit as far as possible the number posted to their own Member State(2) and to apply a four year rotation system.(1) See Article 13 of Chapter V. The protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities is annexed to the Treaty signed on 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the Communities and was accepted by Sweden in the accession Treaty.(2) Less than 1 % of officials are posted to representations, and even less to their own Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2622/98 by Niels SINDAL to the Commission. Sale of proprietary pharmaceutical products
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, SINDAL
Subjects: Denmark, approximation of laws, labelling, market approval, medicinal product, packaging, pharmaceutical product













EUR-Lex - 91998E2622 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2622

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2622/98 by Niels SINDAL to the Commission. Sale of proprietary pharmaceutical products  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0106 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2622/98by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Sale of proprietary pharmaceutical productsDirective 75/319(1) requires the Member States to ensure that the manufacture of proprietary medicinal products is subject to the holding of an authorisation. However, such authorisation is not required for preparation, dividing up and changes in packaging where these processes are carried out solely for retail supply by pharmacists in dispensing pharmacies.This has prompted Denmark's national health board to impose a general ban on splitting up proprietary pharmaceutical products including multipacks. Should the splitting up of proprietary pharmaceuticals really be regarded as manufacturing medicinal products?Is the Commission not of the opinion that Directive 75/319 confers a general right on dispensing pharmacists to split up packages of proprietary pharmaceuticals?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission(1 October 1998)Article 16 of Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(2) obliges the Member States to require marketing authorisation for all processes for the dividing up, packaging or presentation of medicinal products. By derogation, such authorization is not required where such processes are carried out for retail supply by pharmacists in dispensing pharmacies.However, Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets(3) specifies, without derogation, that all medicinal products must be sold with labelling and with a package leaflet conforming to the requirements of the Directive. Pharmacists who split up packages of proprietary medicinal products may therefore only supply patients with products from them if labelling and a package leaflet as laid down in Directive 92/27/EEC are also provided. This requirement has the effect of automatically making it, if not unlawful, then at least very difficult in practical terms for pharmacists to split up packages.(1) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975, p. 13.(2) OJ L 147, 9.6.1975.(3) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2593/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Conclusion of programme agreements in Greece
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, discrimination on the basis of nationality, energy production, means of public conveyance, public contract, public sector, telecommunications













EUR-Lex - 91998E2593 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2593

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2593/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Conclusion of programme agreements in Greece  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0097 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/98by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Conclusion of programme agreements in GreeceAccording to reports in the Greek press, the Commission has doubts as to whether Greece is duly implementing agreements on programmes in the fields of telecommunications, energy, water supplies and transport valued at DRS 1 trillion, which public authorities concluded at the end of 1997 with private firms.The projects planned under the agreements are considered to be particularly important and any complication in implementing them will cause serious problems. Will the Commission, therefore, say whether there is a problem in concluding the agreements on the programmes, where the problem lies, which particular agreements are concerned and what the Commission intends to do to remedy the situation?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(27 October 1998)The Commission has received complaints, backed up by reports in the Greek press, that some firms have been excluded on grounds of nationality from programme contracts awarded by Greek public entities operating in the utilities sector (sectors covered by Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entitites operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors(1)). The Commission has consequently contacted the Greek authorities to seek clarification of the situation.According to the information available to the Commission, it seems that the programme contracts in question, valued at around ECU 3 600 million in total, were concluded by Greek public enterprises just before Directive 93/38/EEC entered into force in Greece. However, the Commission notes that while no specific rules of secondary Community legislation apply in this instance (since Directive 93/38/EEC was not in force in Greece at the time), these contracts are nonetheless subject to the general rules and principles laid down in the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of non-discrimination based on nationality.The Commission and the Greek authorities are currently in the process of examining whether or not firms were actually excluded on the basis of their nationality. If need be, the Commission will not hesitate to pursue the matter under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2711/98 by Anneli HULTHÉN Making it easier for farmers to apply for farm subsidies
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HULTHEN
Subjects: Sweden, administrative formalities, administrative transparency, aid system, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, competence of the Member States, form, reform of the CAP, simplification of formalities













EUR-Lex - 91998E2711 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2711

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2711/98 by Anneli HULTHÉN Making it easier for farmers to apply for farm subsidies  


Official Journal C 289 , 11/10/1999 P. 0007 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2711/98by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Making it easier for farmers to apply for farm subsidiesApplications are never even made for much of the money in Sweden's farm subsidy kitty. Farmers argue that one of the reasons for this is that the procedure, with its large number of application forms, is too complex and takes up too much of their working time. After all, farmers have not chosen their occupation in order to sit in front of piles of paper. Has the Commission revised the application procedure so as to minimise the number of forms and thus simplify applications? If not, can it see that there is a need to make things easier for farmers and hence take steps to devise a system involving fewer forms?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(5 October 1998)The Commission is not sure what type of aid the Honourable Member is referring to. For example, in the arable crops sector, applications for subsidies are submitted for more than 90 % of base area in Sweden.The Commission is aware of the amount of effort farmers have to put into filling in forms. At the same time it has to be said that it is the Member States which are responsible for the lay-out and clarity of forms. Also, the need for a formal aid application procedure is inevitably linked to the existence of a common policy financed by public resources, the use of which needs to be justified to the taxpayer.While the task is not an easy one, the Commission is making a massive effort to simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP) by cutting out as much red tape as possible and making agricultural legislation clearer, more transparent and more accessible.In recent years, simplification has been the Commission's watchword in reforming the CAP. A good illustration of this is the agricultural part of the proposals under Agenda 2000(1), presented in March 1998(2), in which much attention has been paid to simplification, in particular as regards arable crops and rural development. The Commission proposals for reforming the market organisations for olive oil and wine contain significant simplification measures. The Commission is not the only actor on the stage. Different and sometimes contradictory interests of Member States come into play and are often one of the causes of the complexity of the various implementing regulations.(1) COM(97) 2000 final.(2) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2730/98 by Jessica LARIVE to the Commission. DG XIII's failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, LARIVE
Subjects: EU aid, Netherlands, cultural event, film production, financial aid, technical barriers to trade

C 135/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

(1999/C 135/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/98

by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: DG XIII’s failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival

In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of
ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and
requests for payments the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997.

In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The
requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient.

However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombudsman no money
has yet been forthcoming.

Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII

1.
and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?

2.

Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?

3. What action is the Commission going to take?

4. When does the Commission think it will be paying out the money?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

A complaint concerning the case referred to by the Honourable Member has already been made to the
European Ombudsman.

The Commission provided a detailed response to an initial request for information by the Ombudsman. In
addition, following a request for further information by the Ombudsman, the Commission provided
further details on specific points concerning the subsidy-granting procedure. The Ombudsman has so far
not announced his conclusions.

Since the facts at issue are being examined closely by the European Ombudsman the Commission feels
that the Ombudsman¢s conclusions should be awaited before any possible follow-up work in this areas is
examined.

(1999/C 135/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Religious persecution in Sudan

Will the Commission protest in the strongest possible terms to the government of the Republic of Sudan
over that country’s continuing persecution of people who convert to the Christian faith?

Its attention should be drawn particularly to the cases of Faisal Abdallah, Ahmad Abdulraham and Al Faki
Kuku Hassan, all converts from Islam who have been imprisoned and against whom charges of subversion
have been made, simply as a pretext to persecute them for their faith.