do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2643/98 by John McCARTIN Famine relief to Sudan
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: EU aid, Red Cross, Sudan, Unicef, World Food Programme, aid to disaster victims, food aid, humanitarian aid, hunger, non-governmental organisation

C 289/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.10.1999

Specifically for North-West Africa, after a period of intensive consultation with the African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) countries a project will shortly be presented for funding by the European development fund to
develop a fisheries information and analysis system with the six countries of the Sub-regional fisheries
commission (SRFC) (Mauritania, Senegal, Cap Verde, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea). This collaboration aims
to improve the performance of regional and national fisheries management and to mobilize national research
institutions in the six countries with their European partners and have their research respond to the needs of
decision-makers. This project has been endorsed by the ministerial conference of the SRFC in Conakry
9-10 October.

(1999/C 289/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Mackerel quota

Can the Commission state what is the total quota of mackerel for Ireland for the current year and how many
tonnes had been caught by 1 June 1998? How many Irish vessels are recorded as having landed mackerel and
what percentage of this catch was landed in Ireland?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The current quota of mackerel allocated to Ireland in International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES)
zone II (excluding Community-Zone), Vb (Community-Zone), VI, VII, VIIIa), b), d), e), XII and XIV for 1998 is
66 650 tonnes. The monthly catch figures sent to the Commission by Member States show that by 1 June
1998, Irish vessels has caught 45 969 tonnes of mackerel, which represents 69 % of the quota allocated to
Ireland.

Member States do not have an obligation to notify the Commission concerning the number of vessels that have
landed these catches. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to inform the Honourable Member how
many Irish vessels are recorded as having landed mackerel. This matter should be raised with the authorities in
Ireland.

Furthermore, the Irish authorities have reported to the Commission that 17 414 tonnes of mackerel have been
landed in Irish ports by 1 June 1998. Therefore, 37,9 % of the mackerel caught by Irish vessels has been landed
in Ireland.

(1999/C 289/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Famine relief to Sudan

Can the Commission outline what steps have been taken to provide relief for the victims of the famine in
southern Sudan and whether the budgetary resources available have been a limiting factor on the EU’s relief
activities?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2609/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Promoting quality meat
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: beef, exchange of information, product quality, sales promotion













EUR-Lex - 91998E2609 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2609

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2609/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Promoting quality meat  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/98by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Promoting quality meatWhat funds has the Commission provided or earmarked for the promotion of quality meat as a means of reversing the recent slump in beef consumption, restoring consumer confidence, and thus bringing about an increase in beef consumption?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(17 September 1998)Since 1993, the Commission has supported promotion and marketing measures for quality beef and veal under Council Regulation (EEC) 2067/92 of 30 June 1992 on measures to promote and market quality beef and veal(1).The following table summarises the budgetary situation with regard to finance for the measures:>TABLE>(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2525/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Cross-border 'junk mail'
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: advertising malpractice, consumer protection, cross-frontier data flow, distance selling, economic offence, game of chance, import restriction, postal service













EUR-Lex - 91998E2525 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2525

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2525/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Cross-border 'junk mail'  


Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0109 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2525/98by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Cross-border "junk mail"As cross-border "junk-mail", i.e. bogus lotteries and false competitions, is now a widespread phenomenon throughout the European Union, does the Commission intend to take action to reduce the perpetuation of such a problem?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission(13 October 1998)The Commission has no specific information on the extent of cross-border "junk mail" relating to bogus lotteries and false competitions.At present, the organisation of cross-border lotteries falls under the provisions of Article 59 of the EC Treaty et seq. as interpreted by the Court of justice in the "Schindler" judgement (case C-275/92). In accordance with this judgement and given the peculiar nature of lotteries which involves a risk of crime or fraud, it is justified that national authorities have a sufficient degree of latitude to determine what is required to protect the players and to maintain order in society. In those circumstances, it is for them to assess if it is necessary to prohibit or restrict the activities of lotteries, provided the restrictions are not discriminatory.Besides, Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on consumer protection with respect to distance contracts(1), which is to be brought into force by the Member States no later than 3 June 2000, provides for restrictions on the use of certain means of distance communication. According to Article 10(1), the prior consumer consent is required for a supplier's use of automatic calling machines and facsimile machines. Article 10(2) stipulates that "Member States shall ensure that means of distant communication, other than those referred to in paragraph 1, which allow individual communication may be used only where there is no clear objection from the consumer."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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2608/98 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Criteria governing budget headings A-3 0 and A-3 1
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: DUEHRKOP DUEHRKOP, European Parliament
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, accounting, aid recipient, budgetary control, charges for use of infrastructure, co-financing, eligibility criteria, terms for aid, young person













EUR-Lex - 91998E2608 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2608

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2608/98 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Criteria governing budget headings A-3 0 and A-3 1  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2608/98by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Criteria governing budget headings A-3 0 and A-3 1The headings under chapters A-3 0 and A-3 1 of the budget stipulate that, in order to qualify for the second half of their subsidies, the institutions of European interest listed therein should receive 10 % of the total cost of their activities from sources other than the European Union.Various youth organisations have expressed concern at the Commission's failure to define clearly the exact criteria determining the resources eligible for inclusion within that 10 %.What is the precise nature of these criteria? Could the figure of 10 % be said to include non-cash assets acquired by these organisations, be they moveable or immoveable assets?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(8 October 1998)On the basis of the headings under Chapters A-30 and A-31, the Commission subsidises either beneficiaries' specific projects or their overall activities. In both cases, the minimum cofinancing criterion of 10 % of the budget subsidised by the Community budget applies.In the case of specific projects, this criterion specifically refers to the budget for the project itself and not the overall activities of the beneficiaries.Where the overall activities of beneficiaries are subsidised, the organisation's annual accounts are the official basis for calculating the cofinancing. Where the standard accounting rules are applied, duly recorded infrastructure costs are eligible for the calculation of the cofinancing.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2665/98 by Ilona GRAENITZ to the Commission. Framework directive on foodstuffs
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, GRAENITZ
Subjects: EC Directive, approximation of laws, drafting of EU law, food additive, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/87

proposal for a Joint Action concerning solidarity in the admission and residence of beneficiaries of the
temporary protection of displaced persons, which take into account the Opinion of the European
Parliament (1) and the discussions held within the Council’s bodies on the initial proposal (2) to which
the Honourable Member refers.

The Council Presidency attaches a great deal of importance to this matter and has made it one of its
priorities.

Both proposals are currently being considered within the Council’s bodies, by the competent working
party. At this stage in the proceedings, it is impossible for the Council to reply to the specific questions
raised by the Honourable Member regarding what is meant by ‘burden-sharing’ and the criteria governing
it.

These proposals do not concern States which are not members of the European Union. If they are adopted,
they will form part of the acquis, to which any new Member State of the European Union will have to
subscribe.

(1) OJ C 339, 16.11.1997, p. 146.
(2) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997, p. 13.

(1999/C 135/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/98

by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Framework directive on foodstuffs

In his statement on the Breyer report (Foodstuffs additives − A4-0242/98) Mr Bangemann referred on
14 July 1998 to the debate on a framework directive for foodstuffs. A directive of this kind was called for
by Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 1998 (A4-0009/98).

Has the detailed discussion of such a directive already begun? Can a proposal for a directive still be
expected during the life of the current Parliament or during the term of office of the current Commission?

Will such a directive still be produced in sufficient time for it to be accepted as part of the ‘acquis
communautaire’ by the applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

The Commission is able to assure the Honourable Member that its departments will soon begin to prepare
the final touches to a proposal for a framework directive on foodstuffs.

Given the complexity of the subject matter and the need to conduct highly detailed consultations with all
of the parties concerned, the Commission is at the moment unfortunately not able to give it any indication
as regards the deadlines needed in order successfully to complete those preparations.

(1999/C 135/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention

The Justice and Home Affairs Council has already held detailed discussions on the Eurodac Convention
which seeks to introduce a computer-assisted system for the exchange of fingerprints of asylum-seekers in
implementation of the Dublin Convention on Asylum. This prompts the following questions:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2697/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Flight safety
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: air safety, air traffic control, air transport, carrier, civil aviation, free competition, report, supervisory body, transport accident, transport safety

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/97

(1999/C 135/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2696/98

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles

The total authorised loaded weight for heavy goods vehicles in France is subject to a limit of 40 tonnes,
whereas the corresponding limit in neighbouring European countries ranges from 44 to as much as
50 tonnes.

The European Union has been looking into a common definition of road transport vehicles with a view to
harmonising the rules applicable to them in the light of the opening of borders to the transport of goods by
road and establishing the weight, dimensions and environmental standards to which such ‘European’
vehicles should conform.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

In 1993, the Commission adopted a proposal to harmonise the maximum weights and dimensions of
lorries throughout the Community (1) for international and national transport operations.

The proposal contained, inter alia, a maximum weight limit of 44 tons for 6 − axle lorry combinations
fitted with air suspension and a maximum weight limit of 40 tons for 5 − axle lorry combinations.

Whilst certain aspects of the proposal (chiefly those relating to maximum vehicle dimensions for all
transport and weight limits only for international transport) were adopted as Council Directive 96/53/EC
of 25 July 1996 (2), there was no agreement in the Council to harmonise maximum vehicle weights for
national transport.

This part of the Commission’s proposal consequently formally remains with the Council for consideration
and there are currently no plans to withdraw the proposal.

(1) OJ C 38, 8.2.1994.
(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(1999/C 135/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2697/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flight safety

Community legislation on flight safety points to the establishment of an independent national agency for
the prevention and investigation of aviation accidents as one of the most effective means of achieving the
goal of flight safety.

The setting up of such a body, made obligatory by an EEC directive which has yet to be implemented by
Italy, has become more urgent and necessary as a result of the introduction of free competition between
carriers. Its establishment should be justified on grounds that attract broad political consensus, precisely
because everyone has a right to safety.

Can the European Commission say which Member States have yet to implement the directive and does it
not consider that it should prevail upon these Member States to do so?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2528/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. End-of-life vehicles/motorcycles
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: environmental impact, motor vehicle, proposal (EU), two-wheeled vehicle, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91998E2528 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2528

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2528/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. End-of-life vehicles/motorcycles  


Official Journal C 297 , 15/10/1999 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2528/98by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: End-of-life vehicles/motorcycles1. Has the Commission carried out a specific environmental impact assessment for end-of-life motorcycles?2. Is the Commission satisfied that the provisions envisaged for motorcycles in the proposed Directive are proportionate to those envisaged for larger vehicles?3. Has the Commission carried out an economic impact assessment of the effect that this proposed Directive would have on the motor-cycle manufacturing and retailing industries in the EU?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(28 October 1998)The Commission has, in line with Article 130 R (3) of the EC Treaty, assessed the potential benefits and costs of action and lack of action in relation to end of life vehicles. A number of other principles, namely those mentioned in Article 130 R (2) of the EC Treaty have also been taken into account.In this context the Commission has carefully considered the need to include end of life motorcycles in the scope of the proposal for a directive on end of life vehicles(1). Motorcycle manufacturers and users have been duly consulted in this process. In light of, inter alia, the economic considerations mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has come to the conclusion that end of life motorcycles should be excluded from the scope of articles 4 and 7 of the proposal. At the same time the Commission has reached the conclusion that there is no justification for the exclusion of end of life motorcycles from the other provisions of the proposal.(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2677/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. Environmental crime
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: environmental offence, environmental protection, fight against crime, organised crime













EUR-Lex - 91998E2677 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2677

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2677/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. Environmental crime  


Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0133 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/98by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council(1 September 1998)Subject: Environmental crimeThe Presidency-in-Office has declared that the fight against organised crime will be a key area of its programme. It maintains that the threat posed needs to be tackled through individual and joint action.The conclusions of the Cardiff Summit noted that environmental crime was a serious, disturbing matter whose effects often extended beyond national borders. The Council was consequently duty-bound to take steps.What practical steps will the Council take to discharge that duty?What particular forms will those measures take?How will the measures affect criminal prosecution in the Member States?Reply(22 October 1998)The Meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union held on 28th and 29th May 1998 highlighted, at the initiative of the Danish Minister of Justice, the problems associated with environmental crime. Further, the discussion at the Cardiff Summit in June 1998 concluded that serious environmental crime was a grave problem, often with cross border effects.Within the Council, the Multi Disciplinary Group on organised crime is in the course of implementing a multi faceted Action plan which aims effectively to prevent and repress those forms of criminal activity which threaten the organisation and structure of civilised society. In recent months the Multi Disciplinary Group has considered a paper submitted by the Danish delegation relating specifically to the problem of serious environmental crime, and consideration is now being given to the best way of pursuing the particular issues raised in this document.The Austrian Presidency lists the fight against international crime as one of the main objectives of its Presidency, and action in this area will take place, in whatever form that criminality presents itself.It should be noted additionally that within the Council of Europe work is continuing on a draft Convention on Environmental Crime. The Member States of the European Union have actively participated in this work. It is expected that this instrument will shortly be opened for signature.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2628/98 by Frédéric STRIBY to the Commission. Euro information campaign
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, STRIBY
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, dissemination of EU information, euro, financial aid, information policy, public awareness campaign













EUR-Lex - 91998E2628 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2628

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2628/98 by Frédéric STRIBY to the Commission. Euro information campaign  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0108 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/98by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Euro information campaignThe Commission is financing activities to inform the population of the Union about the euro.What activities have been financed since 1997? What associations have been financed?What sums have been invested? How can they be broken down?What are the criteria for selecting activities and associations? Who follows and monitors their achievements?What are the results? How are they evaluated?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission(10 November 1998)The Community finances measures to inform the public about the euro in the framework of the priority information programme. "The euro, a currency for Europe" (budget heading B3 306 - Information programme for European citizens (Prince)). The measure is carried out in interinstitutional partnership with Parliament. It was the subject of a memorandum from the Commission to the Council and Parliament in February 1998(1).Expenditure under this heading includes joint financing with the Member States of joint communication plans on the euro provided for under conventions, the allocation of financial contributions to public bodies which engage in information campaigns contributing to the objectives of the measure, direct communication operations, and the production and dissemination of tools and information services on the euro.In view of the large number of partners in these operations, the Commission is sending the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of Parliament a full list of the bodies involved under separate cover.In 1997 expenditure amounted to ECU 30,96 million, including ECU 15,62 million for agreements with Member States, ECU 9,74 million for financial contributions and ECU 5,6 million for television information broadcasts and direct operations.In allocating the financial contributions the Commission examines all partnership proposals to the institution. An observer from Parliament is regularly invited to participate in this work. The operation is presented to an advisory working party comprised of representatives of Parliament and the Commission, which produces progress reports periodically.All the provisions in the Treaty and Financial Regulation regarding both internal and external audit apply as a matter of course to this operation, which has been regularly examined by the Court of Auditors.The Commission coordinates and evaluates the work regularly, and periodic surveys and analyses enable it to measure the progress and impact of the information about the euro on the public.(1) COM(98) 39 final.