do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2734/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Battery cages
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, ODDY
Subjects: European standard, consumer information, egg, intensive livestock farming, labelling, laying poultry, marketing standard, protection of animals













EUR-Lex - 91998E2734 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2734

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2734/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Battery cages  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0107 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2734/98by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Battery cagesWill the Commission draw up proposals to phase out the use of battery cages for laying hens and introduce a system of mandatory egg labelling to enable consumers to be aware of the conditions under which the hens which laid the eggs have been kept?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(24 September 1998)The Commission has recently presented a proposal to the Council which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, including cages(1). The proposal is presently under discussion in the Council and has been sent to the Parliament for an opinion.The new requirements would, if adopted as proposed, apply to newly built or rebuilt systems from 1 January 1999 and from 1 January 2009 for all housing systems. As a general rule under the new proposal hens should be housed in a system which allows nesting, dustbathing and perching. Member States may, however, authorise derogations from dustbathing and nesting in order to permit the use of battery cages, provided that the hens have a minimum area of 800 cm2 per hen.The Commission intends to amend the existing Community egg-labelling legislation (Council Regulation (EEC) 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs; Commission Regulation (EEC) 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs(2)) to ensure that all table eggs produced in the Community are labelled. These provisions will be voluntary for third countries. With this system of labelling it would be possible for consumers to distinguish table eggs produced in the Community and those produced in third countries and to be aware of the conditions under which the hens have been kept. With this system of labelling it is then up to the European consumers to choose the type of table eggs they prefer.(1) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.(2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2670/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. EU aid programme for officials
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, EU programme, European official, association agreement (EU), cooperation policy, enlargement of the Union

C 96/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

(1999/C 96/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU aid programme for officials

At present there are 11 different programmes for promoting various activities involving officials (training,
exchange of officials, exchange of information, improved cooperation). This proliferation of cooperation
programmes is not in conformity with the repeated demand for transparency, effectiveness and proximity to
the general public. This fragmentation has also been criticized accordingly in many quarters.

1. What aims do the individual programmes pursue and what purpose do they fulfill? How exactly do they
differ from one another?

2.

3.

4.

Is a review of these programmes planned during the presidency?

If so, what form is it due to take?

If not, what are the reasons for not carrying out such a review?

5.
Since these programmes have in part already been opened to the applicant countries as well, I have the
following further question: Could the Council give a detailed breakdown showing in which of these programmes
participants from the CEECs are already involved?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

The Council would point out that the various Community programmes of actions for officials are administered by
the Commission in cooperation with the Member States or the non-Member States concerned. Consequently, it is
for the Commission to appreciate whether the aims pursued duly reflect needs in this area. To date, it has not
submitted any proposal to review those programmes of actions for officials.

(1999/C 96/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs

When they met within the Council in March 1998, the Ministers responsible for justice and home affairs issued a
statement on openness and transparency. The object was to make details of measures more readily and rapidly
accessible, provide regular exhaustive information to the Press, and organise open Council debates. In addition,
the national parliaments were to be briefed at an earlier stage.

To what extent and in what way is the Commission involved in implementing the above statement? How far

1.
has the work progressed?

2.

How will information (for the public and Press) be made more easily accessible?

3. What will be done to involve the national parliaments earlier in the day?

4.
According to reports, the British Presidency, in collaboration with the Commission, drew up an exact list of
legislation constituting the third pillar acquis, which is now to be used as a basis for the accession negotiations.
Would it not be conducive to transparency to publish the list? If so, when can the list be supplied?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2685/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. 1999 drugs strategy
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: European Commission, European Council, European conference, Treaty on European Union, drug addiction, narcotic













EUR-Lex - 91998E2685 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2685

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2685/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. 1999 drugs strategy  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0032 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/98by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council(1 September 1998)Subject: 1999 drugs strategyThe Cardiff Summit adopted a report on operations to combat drug abuse, including a drugs strategy for 1999 and subsequent years, and the Council and Commission were called upon to devise a blueprint for further action.1. How will the Presidency-in-Office answer the above call?2. What specific proposals does it intend to submit, and what progress has it already made in drawing them up?3. An international conference on drugs will take place in Vienna on 5 and 6 November 1998. Who will represent the Union at the conference?4. What attitude will the representatives take?5. How will policy be worked out, and what role will Parliament play in that procedure?Reply(18/19 January 1999)Discussion of the implementation of the strategy adopted at the European Council meeting in Cardiff began under the Austrian Presidency.The discussion will be continued in 1999, notably in the light of a contribution from the Commission and the imminent entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty.The European Union was not represented as such at the flagship event of the European Drugs Prevention Week held in Vienna on 5 and 6 November 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2578/98 by Angela SIERRA GONZÁLEZ to the Commission. Economic and taxation regime - the Canary Islands and tax havens
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, SIERRA GONZALEZ
Subjects: Canary Islands, code of conduct, development aid, fiscal policy, peripheral region, tax system, type of business

C 118/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Of course, if evidence were to come to light that anti-personnel landmines were being used, particularly
where the civil population might be put at risk, this would provoke the strongest condemnation from the
Commission.

(1999/C 118/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flood relief in China

Can the Commission state whether any EU aid was offered to the People(cid:146)s Republic of China following
the recent disaster caused by flooding?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

By an emergency decision adopted on 6 August 1998, the Commission allocated an amount of
ECU 605 000 to two relief projects which are implemented by the International Federation of the Red
Cross and MØdecins sans frontiŁres (MSF) Holland. These projects, which target some of the worst
affected areas in Central and Southern China, are supposed to respond to the most urgent needs of the
flood victims in the fields of food, water and temporary shelter.

A second emergency decision for an amount of ECU 1 050 000 was adopted on 4 September 1998. This
project, with objectives like the two above-mentioned operations, is also implemented by the International
Federation of the Red Cross.

Given the size of the present flood disaster, the Commission is continuing to monitor the evolution of the
situation closely with a view to possible allocation of additional assistance.

(1999/C 118/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/98

by Angela Sierra GonzÆlez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Economic and taxation regime › the Canary Islands and tax havens

The (cid:145)special taxation group(cid:146) of the Commission, which is answerable to the Commissioner responsible for
taxation matters, Mr Mario Monti, has drawn up a list of 75 (cid:145)potentially harmful(cid:146) situations in the EU,
among which it has included the economic and taxation regime prevailing in the Canary Islands.

However, the taxation aspects of this regime received the Commission(cid:146)s approval in December 1997, with
a number of modifications to the text proposed.

Article 299 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, currently in process of ratification, recognises the right of the
outlying regions, including the Canary Islands, to establish specific measures in the area of taxation.

What aspects of the Canary Islands(cid:146) regime did the group consider to constitute (cid:145)potentially harmful(cid:146)
measures for competition in the EU?

What justification is there for including the Canary Islands(cid:146) regime on this (cid:145)grey list(cid:146), given the special
circumstances of the Union(cid:146)s outlying regions?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2604/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Gas and electricity directives and environment impact assessment
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, competition, electrical energy, environmental impact, liberalisation of the market, natural gas, renewable energy













EUR-Lex - 91998E2604 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2604

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2604/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Gas and electricity directives and environment impact assessment  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0101 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/98by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Gas and electricity directives and environment impact assessmentThe Commission has recently produced gas and electricity directives as a step towards greater liberalisation.Why have these directives not already been subjected to an environment impact assessment, and when will this happen?What will the Commission do to ensure that efficiency demands for the energy sector, the main sector to meet climate change commitments, will not be countered by liberalisation efforts?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission(26 October 1998)The Commission committed itself in 1993(1) to subject new legislative proposals to environmental impact assessments. As, however, the proposals for the directives on liberalisation of the markets for electricity and natural gas date from 21 February 1992, the Commission has not subjected these directives to environmental impact assessments.Generally, the Commission considers that possible risks of liberalisation (e.g. more energy consumption due to lower prices) will be outweighed largely by the positive effects liberalisation will have on the environment, such as the interconnection of the systems favoured by the creation of a liberalised single market which means that reserve capacity can become smaller per country with less waste of natural resources. Also the introduction of competition will lead to increasing energy efficiency, because waste of resources is translated into higher prices, which will lead to a loss of customers in a competitive situation. In addition, further liberalisation and competition on prices will lead to a quicker switch over to the cheaper, and most importantly, cleaner resource of natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation.Finally, the opening of the market, and the accompanying measures envisaged to promote access to the grid of electricity generated by renewables, are expected to provide new opportunities for the environmentally friendly renewable energies to take a bigger share of the market.(1) SEC(93) 785 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2633/98 by Otto von HABSBURG to the Council. EU-Croatia relations
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HABSBURG
Subjects: Croatia, EU relations, United Kingdom, diplomatic relations, international law, ministry, official visit, refugee, repatriation grant

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. 2615/98 by Doeke EISMA to the Commission. Quarantine laws in the United Kingdom
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament
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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2640/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Settlement of debts of agricultural cooperatives in Greece
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, State aid, agricultural cooperative, debt, redemption













EUR-Lex - 91998E2640 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2640

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2640/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Settlement of debts of agricultural cooperatives in Greece  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/98by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Settlement of debts of agricultural cooperatives in GreeceIt has been reported in the Greek press that the Commission is considering whether the measures decided on by the Greek Government by Law 2538/97 concerning the debts of agricultural cooperatives are compatible with Community provisions on state aid.Since the arrangements provided for by the law are of critical importance for the operation of cooperatives in Greece and since it is imperative that the situation be clarified as rapidly as possible, will the Commission say: Do the provisions and implementation of Law 2538/97 concerning the settlement of the debts of agricultural cooperatives raise any problems and, if so, where do these problems lie and what procedures exist to tackle them and ensure that the law can be applied?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(30 September 1998)The Commission has indeed expressed doubts as to the compatibility with the common market of various measures provided for in Greek Law No 2538/97. On 31 March 1998, the Commission decided to initiate the State aids procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. This decision will shortly be published in the Official Journal.The Article 93(2) procedure will therefore be followed so that the Commission can adopt a final decision on the compatibility of the aid with the competition rules.The Commission objects to the measures under Law No 2538/97 because they meet the criteria laid down in Article 92(1) of the Treaty without qualifying for any of the exemptions provided for Article 92(2) and (3). In particular, the Commission considers that the aid envisaged by the Greek government to settle the debts of cooperatives does not appear to meet the conditions in the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(1).(1) OJ C 283, 19.9.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2737/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Lindane
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, ODDY
Subjects: cereals, environmental protection, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, pesticide, pesticide residue, public health, research report, toxic substance













EUR-Lex - 91998E2737 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2737

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2737/98 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Lindane  


Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2737/98by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: LindaneWill the Commission urgently consider the banning of lindane, an organochlorine pesticide which is a highly toxic poison and can pose serious risks to health and the environment?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(22 October 1998)At present the maximum residue limits for lindane are fixed by Council Directive 76/895/EEC(1) of 23 November 1976 relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables, Council Directive 86/362/EEC(2) of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals and Council Directive 90/642/EEC(3) of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables.This active substance is one of the 90 active substances covered by the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC(4) of 15 July 1991 concerning the marketing of plant protection products. A report on this active substance is currently being prepared by the rapporteur Member State (Austria).When the Commission receives the report from the rapporteur Member State, an intensive scientific and technical examination with all the Member States will take place to ascertain the impact of this active substance on human health and the environment. The Commission will then be in a position to take an appropriate decision for this active substance.(1) OJ L 340, 9.12.1976.(2) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.(3) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990.(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.