do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2629/98 by Arie OOSTLANDER to the Commission. Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the EU school milk scheme
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, OOSTLANDER
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, European Union, European standard, Netherlands, dairy industry, educational institution, milk product, product quality

C 135/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

(1999/C 135/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/98

by Arie Oostlander (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the

EU school milk scheme

To what extent do milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry, such as chocolate milk, buttermilk and
yoghurt drinks, satisfy the quality standards defined by the Commission for dairy products that qualify for
subsidies under the EU school milk scheme?

Which products, if any, do not satisfy the Commission’s quality standards and to what extent?

If the products concerned do satisfy the quality standards, will the Commission publicise the fact so that
schools may take advantage of a minimum choice of dairy products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

The Community legislation on aid for milk and milk products distributed in schools merely lists the
categories of products which are eligible for aid, and does not actually specify what quality standards such
products must satisfy. As a result, the horizontal rules on the quality of dairy products placed on the
market also apply to the school milk scheme. It must therefore be assumed that no dairy product
manufactured by the Netherlands dairy industry should be excluded from the scheme for reasons of
quality.

(1999/C 135/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2633/98

by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU-Croatia relations

I refer to the hardly informative and more than inadequate answer to my question of 31 March 1998 to the
Council (No P-1110/98 (1)) concerning the cancellation of the Council President’s visit to Zagreb, which
did not take place until 6 July:

1.

Instead of making general and unsubstantiated accusations about Croatia, is the Council prepared to
state specifically in what proven respects Zagreb has failed to honour its international commitments?

2. What does the phrase ‘by the regional approach and the policy of conditionality’ mean in normal,

unbureaucratic language?

3.

Is the Council aware that certain circles in the EU are pursuing a systematically hostile policy against
Croatia, even though it has taken an exemplary stand against foreign aggression and has never
threatened any of its neighbours in any way?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 114.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2735/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Thalassaemia
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, ODDY
Subjects: Asia, EU action, blood disease, congenital disease, disease prevention, public awareness campaign

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/141

(c) rationalisation of transhumance;

(d) measures to support laboratories carrying out analyses on the physico-chemical properties of honey;

(e) cooperation with specialised bodies for the implementation of applied research programmes to improve the

quality of honey.

To be eligible for part-financing, Member States must carry out a study of the production and marketing structure
in the beekeeping sector in their territory. The Community will provide part-financing for the national
programmes equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Member States.

It is stipulated that the Commission will present to the European Parliament and the Council every three years a
report on the application of the Regulation.

At this juncture, the Council considers that the aforementioned Regulation constitutes a fair balance between
budgetary constraints and the most pressing needs in the beekeeping sector.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997, p. 4.

(1999/C 96/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2735/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Thalassaemia

Will the Commission draw up proposals for a publicity campaign to increase awareness of the importance of
screening for Thalassaemia, an inherited genetic blood disorder which is particularly prevalent amongst people of
Asian origin whose ancestors came from the Indian sub-continent? A simple blood test can identify carriers of the
disorder, for which there is no effective cure and which can lead to premature death.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Commission is aware that the hereditary blood disorder, thalassaemia, affects individuals of southern Asian
origin as well as those with Greek, Middle Eastern, and African ancestry. The proposed Community action
programme on rare diseases (1), which is currently under legislative consideration, identifies the provision of
knowledge about rare diseases and the fostering of patient and family support groups among its possible actions.
Once the programme is adopted, the question of public awareness campaigns for thalassaemia screening could be
considered in this framework.

(1) COM(98) 232 final.

(1999/C 96/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/98

by Ana Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Applications from holders of the Spanish (cid:145)Ingeniero TØcnico(cid:146) qualification for open competitions for

category A/LA posts in the European civil service

› In his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97 (1) by Mrs BÆrbara D(cid:252)hrkop, Commis-
sioner Liikanen stated that the Commission admits holders of German diplomas issued after the minimum
compulsory period of eight semesters to category A/LA posts in the European civil service;
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2527/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Political oppression in Burma
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: ASEAN countries, Myanmar/Burma, common foreign and security policy, democratisation, generalised preferences, human rights, humanitarian aid, military regime, sanction (EU), the EU's international role

C 96/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

The Commission considers that these restrictions, provided that appropriate implementing measures are taken at
the national level, represent an adequate legal basis for effectively dealing with situations such as those indicated
by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(1999/C 96/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Political oppression in Burma

As the military dictatorship of Burma has carried out countless atrocities against the Burmese people and the
population of the country lives in extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural resources, what action does
the Commission intend to take?

Would the Commission advocate the imposition of economic and financial sanctions against the Burmese
government?

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

(28 September 1998)

The Commission continues to press its partners to urge the government in Burma to engage in a substantive
dialogue with the opposition. In particular, this has been an important issue in recent discussions with its
Association of South East Asian nations (ASEAN) partners.

Under the common position, co-operation with Burma remains suspended and will continue to be so until
substantial progress is made towards democratisation and the respect of human rights. Only humanitarian
programmes will be funded.

In addition, outside the political framework, it has to be recalled that the Union has temporarily withdrawn
Burma(cid:146)s access to the tariff preferences granted within the framework of the schemes of generalized tariff
preferences (GSP) because of the practice of forced labour (Council Regulation (EC) 552/97 of 24 March
1997 (1)).

The Union has decided to keep additional measures under consideration, whilst prolonging the common position
on Burma. The decision regarding the imposition of further sanctions against the Burmese government has to be
taken under the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) framework and not by the Commission alone.

(1) OJ L 85, 27.3.1997.

(1999/C 96/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2530/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Contacts for Commission information campaigns

Has the Commission purchased, in the last five years, research, polling or consultancy services from the company
Carville, Greenburg and Gould/NOP, or the UK-based organisations 2010 or the Foreign Policy Centre?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission has no knowledge of having engaged the services of the companies referred to in the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2727/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Impact of proposed directive on taxation of savings income (COM(98)295)
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: Spain, direct tax, fiscal policy, impact study, outflow of capital, tax on investment income

C 118/128

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

The Council has made it quite clear that Cuba(cid:146)s admission as an observer member to the group of African,
Caribbean and Pacific countries does not make its accession to the LomØ Convention a foregone
conclusion. The Commission would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that relations
between the Union and Cuba are governed by the common position adopted on 2 December 1996 and
confirmed on 9 June this year.

(1999/C 118/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Impact of proposed directive on taxation of savings income (COM(98) 295)

Following a General Affairs Council meeting in July 1998, Mr Jacques Poos was reported as having called
for a study by an independent firm of the potential effects on capital markets of the introduction of the
measures set out in this proposal.

Can the Commission confirm that such a study will be commissioned? If not, can it explain why it does not
consider that such a study would be necessary or useful?

(1999/C 118/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2728/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Taxation of savings income (COM(98) 295)

The Impact Assessment Form attached to this proposal states that (cid:145)the impact of the proposal is ... centred
on the cost of supplementary administrative responsibilities asked of the paying agents(cid:146), but makes no
attempt to quantify this cost.

Does the Commission agree that a quantification of this cost would be extremely useful for a consideration
of the potential impact of this Directive, and will it undertake to produce one?

(1999/C 118/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Taxation of savings income (COM(98) 295)

The Impact Assessment Form attached to this proposal states that (cid:145)the impact of the proposal is ... centred
on the cost of supplementary administrative responsibilities asked of the paying agents,(cid:146) and gives no
serious consideration to the possibility that capital flight could result from the imposition of a withholding
tax, despite clear precedents which suggest that this would occur and would be substantial.

1. What consideration has the Commission given to this issue, and does it propose to produce a
document detailing this consideration?

2.
Given the tremendous importance of this question, particularly in view of the suggestion made by
Mr Helmut Kramer at the Austrian Presidency Tax Conference, held in Vienna on 13 July, 1 000 billion
might be liable to the proposed withholding tax, will the Commission put in hand an independent study to
examine it?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2661/98 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Deadline for the completion of the 'Ecovia' project
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: environmental protection, project management, road traffic

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/131

(1999/C 96/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Deadline for the completion of the (cid:145)Ecovia(cid:146) project

With reference to point 3 of Written Question E-1670/98 (1), can the Commission say what new deadline has been
set for the beneficiary to complete the (cid:145)Ecovia(cid:146) project, for which the original deadline was 30 April 1998?

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The deadline for completion of the Ecovia project is now 30 September 1998.

(1999/C 96/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2663/98

by Francis DecourriŁre (PPE) to the Commission

(31 July 1998)

Subject: Med-Media Programme

Since the Commission(cid:146)s decision to block funds earmarked for Med-Media projects, many project promoters and
a number of film co-producers have met with serious difficulties. The Commission has in fact been informed of
the harm which the non-allocation of funds is causing to these economic operators (film producers).

The Commission has stated that many companies had decided at their own risk to implement film production
projects in the full knowledge of the legal context in which the Commission is obliged to operate. However,
making a film requires much advance planning. In view of this fact, would it not be possible to arrange for a
derogation or come up with compromise solutions to guard against certain companies going bankrupt?

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

(28 September 1998)

On 22 April the Commission decided to relaunch decentralised cooperation programmes in the Mediterranean
region under the conditions that emerged from in-depth discussions with Parliament.

Parliament(cid:146)s resolution of July last year called for the Med-Media programme to be confined to training schemes.

As it has already made clear in this context, the Commission is not indifferent to the difficulties facing some
production companies. It must, however, point out that the projects in question were selected on a cofinancing
basis. The Commission was unable to provide its share of the funding in the absence of contracts with the
projects(cid:146) coordinators.

It does, however, hope that the recently launched Euro-Mediterranean audiovisual programme will go some way
towards satisfying the expectations of those working in the sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2732/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Religious persecution in Sudan
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, ODDY
Subjects: Christianity, Islam, Sudan, freedom of religious beliefs, fundamental rights, human rights, religious discrimination, religious group

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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2557/98 by Hanja MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. UK quarantine law
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MAIJ-WEGGEN
Subjects: EU national, United Kingdom, animal health, domestic animal, health certificate, intra-EU trade, rabies, residence, vaccination, veterinary inspection

C 297/24

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

15.10.1999

(1999/C 297/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/98

by (Hanja) Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: UK quarantine law

Is it true that the United Kingdom still requires pet animals brought in by workers from elsewhere in the
European Union (people who have found work in the United Kingdom and have decided to settle there) to be
held in quarantine for six months?

Is it true that the United Kingdom permits cats and dogs imported for commercial purposes to be brought into
the country provided that a health certificate, a certificate of anti-rabies vaccination and microchip
identification can be produced and a blood test has been carried out?

Does the Commission know why this distinction is made, and does it conform to European legislation?

Will the Commission ask the United Kingdom government to drop this unusual form of discrimination with its
bias against animals and allow pets that have been certified as healthy to be brought into the UK without
problems?

(1999/C 297/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Quarantine laws in the United Kingdom

Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom is at present the only EU country still to apply

1.
quarantine legislation to pets entering the country?

Can the Commission indicate whether these laws are in conformity with current European legislation in

2.
this field?

Does the Commission agree that the quarantine laws in the United Kingdom are very old-fashioned and

3.
cause animals unnecessary suffering?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2557/98 and E-2615/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The conditions for intra-Community trade in dogs and cats are laid down by Article 10 (2) of Council Directive
92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the
Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in
specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1).

Derogating from and additionally to the provisions in this paragraph, for placing on the market in the United
Kingdom and Ireland, dogs and cats must come from registered holdings where they have been confined since
birth, must be properly identified, must be transported in recognized means of transport and the immune
response to vaccination must be proven by serological testing.

Paragraph 4 of that article allows the United Kingdom and Ireland to retain national quarantine rules for those
carnivores, primates, bats and other animals susceptible to rabies covered by Directive 92/65/EEC for which
no guarantees can be given that since birth they never left their holding of origin.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1877/98 of 1 September 1998 on the issuing of A1 export licences for fruit and vegetables
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, nut, quantitative restriction

2. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 243/9

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1877/98

of 1 September 1998

on the issuing of A1 export licences for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/
96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for imple-
menting Council Regulation (EEC) No 2200/96 as
regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/98 (2), and in
particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1276/98 (3)
rectified by Regulation (EC) No 1302/98 (4), sets the
quantities for which A1 export licences, other than those
requested in the context of food aid, may be issued;

Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 sets the
conditions under which special measures may be taken by
the Commission with a view to avoiding an overrun of
the quantities for which A1 licences may be issued;

Whereas the Commission has received information which
indicates that those quantities, reduced or increased by
the quantities referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 2190/96, would be exceeded if A1 licences were

restriction for

shelled hazelnuts

issued without
in
response to applications submitted since 27 August 1998;
whereas, therefore, a percentage should be fixed for the
issuing of licences for quantities applied for on 27 August
1998 and applications for A1 licences submitted later in
that application period should be rejected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

for

licences

for which
A1 export
applications were submitted on 27 August 1998 pursuant
to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1276/98 shall be
issued for 53,3 % of the quantities applied for.

shelled hazelnuts

Applications for A1 export licences submitted after 27
August 1998 and before 9 September 1998 for that
product shall be rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 September
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 1 September 1998.

For the Commission

Karel VAN MIERT

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15. 11. 1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 178, 23. 6. 1998, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 176, 20. 6. 1998, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 180, 24. 6. 1998, p. 12.