do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2888/98 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Works of art as debt payments to the Community
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: European Union, engineering structure, redemption, type of business

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/133

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(1999/C 135/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Trade with Russia

The agreement signed on 23 July 1998 on bilateral trade in textile products between the EU and Russia
abolished some 30 quotas on Russian exports. Has an assessment been made of the potential impact of the
said agreement on the textile sector in the EU as a whole, and in Spain in particular?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1998)

The agreement between the Community and Russia concluded on 20 July 1998 abolishes textile and
clothing quotas previously maintained by both parties. It also confirms that the provisions of the
Cooperation and Partnership Agreement with Russia apply equally to the textile and clothing sector,
thus providing a clear and stable legal framework for trade in textiles.

At this stage it is difficult to assess precisely what impact abolishing the 28 Russian quotas will have on
Russian exports, since the full statistics are currently available only for the first five months of 1998.

Given the low level of use of most of the Russian quotas when they were in force, and the downward trend
in Community imports of textiles from Russia (ECU 246 million in 1997, ECU 244 million in 1996 and
ECU 277 million in 1995), the elimination of 28 quotas will probably not result in a significant increase in
Community textiles imports.

Since Russia’s share of total imports of textile and clothing products is also falling (0,44 % in 1997, 0,51 %
in 1996 and 0,61 % in 1995), it is unlikely that Russian textile exports will have a serious impact on the EU
textile sector.

(1999/C 135/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community

In certain instances, and for various reasons, undertakings and individuals alike are obliged to repay sums
to the EU Exchequer.

On occasion, the difficulty created by the financial situation in which undertakings or individuals find
themselves, aggravated further by a shortage of liquidity, makes it preferable for them, as a last resort, to
pay off their debt by handing over works of art under their ownership.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2864/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Basing limit values on children - Assessment of impact on children - Children's ecological rights
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: air quality, child, environmental standard, impact study, ozone, public health, respiratory disease













EUR-Lex - 91998E2864 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2864

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2864/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Basing limit values on children - Assessment of impact on children - Children's ecological rights  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0155 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2864/98by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council(28 September 1998)Subject: Basing limit values on children - Assessment of impact on children - Children's ecological rightsLimit values laid down in the various European Union directives on the environment are based exclusively on the build of an adult. Because of their size and the fact that their bodies are not fully grown, children often react very sensitively to environmental pollution with illnesses such as allergies, bronchitis or psychosomatic illnesses. Up to now the special constitution of children has not been taken into account in calculating limit values.Does the Council plan to base the calculation of limit values on children in future? If not, why not? How does the Council intend to deal with the problem?Is the state of health of children in the case of high ozone levels being taken into account in the ozone directive currently being drawn up and will the limit value for ozone be lowered?Does the Council believe that the environmental impact assessment for major projects should be accompanied as soon as possible by an assessment of their impact on children? If so, how does the Council envisage achieving this? How should a directive on the assessment of impact on children be transposed?Might the Council envisage taking a legislative initiative with regard to limit values and the assessment of impact on children in the case of major projects?Reply(27 November 1998)1. The Council is aware of the importance of protecting the health of Community citizens. This is in fact one of the aims of the environment policy, which naturally includes the health and well-being of children.For example, in its common position on a proposal for a Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, adopted on 24 September 1998, the Council inserted a recital pointing out that the limit values laid down in the Directive are minimum requirements, and that Member States may introduce stricter limit values "to protect the health of particularly vulnerable categories of the population, such as children and hospital patients".2. However, the Council does not intervene at the preparatory stage of proposals submitted by the Commission, which - as the Honourable Member is aware - holds the right of legislative initiative in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3014/98 by Paul LANNOYE to the Commission. Echelon system
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, LANNOYE
Subjects: European Union, United States, data protection, industrial espionage, information network, protection of communications, secret service, telecommunications, telephone

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/151

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.

(1999/C 135/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3014/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Echelon system

The interim report published by STOA in January 1998 confirms the existence of the Echelon system,
whereby the United States, with the aid of a grid of telecommunications networks based on Vortex
satellites, can intercept all messages sent within the European Union by telephone, fax or E-mail.

We are told by a well-informed source that the President of the Commission has circulated a document to
the institution’s chief section heads warning of the risks of the Commission’s communications being
intercepted.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What steps does it intend to take, within the framework of
its powers, to protect institutions, businesses and individuals within the Union against all forms of political
and economic espionage?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to Commission answers to Written Questions numbers E/1039/98 by
Ms Van Dijk (1), E-1049/98 by Ms Van Dijk (2), E-130/6/98 by Ms Muscardini and others (3), E-1329/98
by Ms Raschhofer (4), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco (5) and E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (6).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 55.
(2) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 54.
(3) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 109.
(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 35.
(5) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 90.
(6) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 130.

(1999/C 135/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3017/98

by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Council

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Israel’s request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN

The State of Israel is the only one of the 185 Member States of the UN which cannot be elected to the
Security Council. This is because the group of Asian States, to which Israel belongs geographically, ban it
from joining their organization and the European Union countries have not yet responded to Israel’s
request to join the Western group.

The United States, Australia, Canada and Norway have already indicated that they are in favour.

What response does the Council intend to make to Israel’s request?

Does it not consider that to approve the request would be a sign that it rightfully condemns the Asian
group’s discrimination against Israel?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2844/98 by Pedro MARSET CAMPOS to the Commission. Alleged scheme to detain and fine Spanish lorries in Poitiers (France)
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, MARSET CAMPOS
Subjects: France, Spain, carriage of goods, commercial vehicle, fine, free movement of goods, free movement of workers, road transport, trade restriction, transport regulations

C 207/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

(1999/C 207/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Grant aid for the pig meat industry in Northern Ireland

Can the Commission state the amount of grant aid paid for the marketing and processing of pig meat in
Northern Ireland over the last 15 years and the breakdown between the EU and UK contributions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

Investment aid awarded to the pigmeat sector in Northern Ireland

Year

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998

Total

Community

Member State (1)

Total award

(£ sterling)

96 108
93700
800 000
726 290
0
200 750
684 219
1 294 345
1 800 000
0
2 117 296
0
0
797 556
1 056 615
0

9 696 879

31 203
36 640
389 949
996 822
0
200 750
752 482
2 103 286
1 761 827
0
356 814
0
0
117 584
2 180 930
0

8 928 287

127 311
130 340
1 189 949
1 753 112
0
401 500
1 436 701
3 397 631
3 561 827
0
2 474 110
0
0
915 140
3 237 545
0

18 625 166

(1)

European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund 0 guidance section.

(1999/C 207/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2844/98

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Alleged scheme to detain and fine Spanish lorries in Poitiers (France)

Employers from the transport sector in the Murcia region of Spain have complained about a scheme linking a
brigade of French gendarmes in the Poitiers area of France to a certain workshop at which tachographs are
checked with the aim of detaining and imposing fines on their lorries on the pretext that the tachographs have
been tampered with, despite the fact that most of them comply with the relevant Spanish legislation.

This unpleasant state of affairs has already held up a dozen lorries from Murcia at weekends, forcing their
drivers to pay hefty sums in order to be able to continue their journey with their goods.

A certain number of gendarmes are suspected of taking fees from workshops in return for sending Spanish
lorries to them to have the tachographs that have allegedly been tampered with replaced.

Several complaints have already been lodged with the Ministry of Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and the French Embassy in Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2866/98 by Clive NEEDLE to the Council. Code of conduct on arms control
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, NEEDLE
Subjects: Germany, Türkiye, code of conduct, conventional weapon, exchange of information, export monitoring













EUR-Lex - 91998E2866 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2866

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2866/98 by Clive NEEDLE to the Council. Code of conduct on arms control  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0130 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/98by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Council(28 September 1998)Subject: Code of conduct on arms controlDespite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat rifles.Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the Council taking on this issue?Reply(20/21 December 1998)The Code of Conduct on arms exports was adopted on 8 June 1998 with a view to setting high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventional arms transfers by all Member States, and to strengthen the exchange of relevant information with a view to achieving greater transparency within the Union.The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question have not been brought to the attention of the Council.The Honourable Member will be aware that individual arms export decisions, and therefore the implementation of the Code, remain the responsibility of the Member States and of their national licensing authorities.Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Council is currently engaged in the definition of the detailed procedure for the envisaged reporting exercise.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2063/98 of 28 September 1998 establishing the quantity of certain poultrymeat sector products available for the fourth quarter of 1998 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2497/96
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Israel, import, poultrymeat, quantitative restriction

L 264/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29. 9. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2063/98

of 28 September 1998

establishing the quantity of certain poultrymeat sector products available for the
fourth quarter of 1998 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2497/96

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2497/
96 of 18 December 1996 laying down rules for the
the system
application in the poultrymeat sector of
provided for by the Association Agreement and the
Interim Agreement between the European Community
and the State of Israel (1), as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1514/97 (2), and in particular Article 4 (5) thereof,

Whereas in order to ensure distribution of the quantities
available, the quantities carried forward from the period 1
July to 30 September 1998 should be added to the quant-

ities available for the period 1 October to 31 December
1998,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantity available for the period 1 October to 31
December 1998 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2497/96
is set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 September 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 338, 28. 12. 1996, p. 48.
(2) OJ L 204, 31. 7. 1997, p. 16.

29. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 264/47

ANNEX

(tonnes)

Group No

Total quantity available
for the period
1 October to 31 December 1998

I1

1 253
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2893/98 by Wilmya ZIMMERMANN to the Council. Problems in implementing Article 8 ff. of the EU Treaty (citizenship of the Union, free movement)
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, ZIMMERMANN
Subjects: EU law - national law, EU national, Treaty on European Union, free movement of persons, migrant worker, residence permit

C 182/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

(1999/C 182/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2877/98

by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Subsidised school milk

Does the Commission think that the present distinction between milk products eligible for subsidies and those
not as part of the EU’s aid for the sale of school milk is in keeping with the times and with prevailing health
policy thinking in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Commission has reason to believe that the operation of the Community school milk scheme in general,
and the range of eligible products in particular, are indeed compatible with Member States’ options on health
policy.

The Commission would also refer to its reply to Written Question No 2731/98 by Mr Bonde on the same
subject.

(1999/C 182/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2893/98

by Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Problems in implementing Article 8 ff. of the EU Treaty (citizenship of the Union, free movement)

The restrictive laws on foreign nationals of many of the Member States often run counter to the objectives of
Article 8 of the EU Treaty. Foreigners are often discriminated against in relation to citizens of the country in
question when it comes to rules on residence and social and labour law.

What is the Council doing to eliminate the obstacles to freedom of movement represented by the Member
States’ laws on foreign nationals?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

Under Article 8 of the EC Treaty, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is a citizen of the
Union and, as such, enjoys the rights conferred by the Treaty and is subject to the duties imposed thereby.

Over a period of some years the Council has adopted a large number of acts concerning the free movement of
persons and the right of establishment. These have covered the right of residence of Member States’ nationals
and their families, social legislation and the rights of employees and self-employed persons.

In the light of the recommendations of the High Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons, chaired by
Ms Simone Veil, the Commission adopted a plan of action in which it said it would submit legislative proposals
for improving the conditions under which the freedom of movement is exercised.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2867/98 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. Code of conduct on arms control
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, NEEDLE
Subjects: Germany, Türkiye, arms trade, code of conduct, conventional weapon, export monitoring, human rights, third country

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/131

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Code of Conduct on arms exports was adopted on 8 June 1998 with a view to setting high common
standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventional
arms transfers by all Member States, and to strengthen the exchange of relevant information with a view to
achieving greater transparency within the Union.

The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question have not been brought to the attention of
the Council.

The Honourable Member will be aware that individual arms export decisions, and therefore the
implementation of the Code, remain the responsibility of the Member States and of their national
licensing authorities.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Council is currently engaged in the definition of the detailed
procedure for the envisaged reporting exercise.

(1999/C 135/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/98

by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Code of conduct on arms control

Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch
have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat
rifles.

Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the
Commission taking on this issue?

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

(5 November 1998)

The Union’s code of conduct on arms exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council of
8 June 1998. The code lists various criteria for Member States to take into account when selling military
supplies to third countries. These criteria include compliance with the Member States’ international
undertakings and the human rights situation in the country of destination. However, the code of conduct is
not an instrument of Community policy and cannot therefore, under the rules of the Treaty, be enforced by
the Commission. Each Member State is accordingly responsible for interpreting the criteria listed in the
code and assessing how they apply to its arms sales.

(1999/C 135/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents

Detergents are a major source of phosphorous in waste water. Such pollution has resulted in a legal ban on
phosphorous in detergents in Italy and Switzerland and voluntary agreements with the detergent industry
in a
in other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This has resulted, for example,
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2870/98 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Phosphorous pollution from detergents
Date: 1998-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, marketing, phosphorus, polishing and scouring preparations, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/131

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Code of Conduct on arms exports was adopted on 8 June 1998 with a view to setting high common
standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventional
arms transfers by all Member States, and to strengthen the exchange of relevant information with a view to
achieving greater transparency within the Union.

The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question have not been brought to the attention of
the Council.

The Honourable Member will be aware that individual arms export decisions, and therefore the
implementation of the Code, remain the responsibility of the Member States and of their national
licensing authorities.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Council is currently engaged in the definition of the detailed
procedure for the envisaged reporting exercise.

(1999/C 135/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/98

by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Code of conduct on arms control

Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Koch
have signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combat
rifles.

Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is the
Commission taking on this issue?

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

(5 November 1998)

The Union’s code of conduct on arms exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council of
8 June 1998. The code lists various criteria for Member States to take into account when selling military
supplies to third countries. These criteria include compliance with the Member States’ international
undertakings and the human rights situation in the country of destination. However, the code of conduct is
not an instrument of Community policy and cannot therefore, under the rules of the Treaty, be enforced by
the Commission. Each Member State is accordingly responsible for interpreting the criteria listed in the
code and assessing how they apply to its arms sales.

(1999/C 135/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents

Detergents are a major source of phosphorous in waste water. Such pollution has resulted in a legal ban on
phosphorous in detergents in Italy and Switzerland and voluntary agreements with the detergent industry
in a
in other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This has resulted, for example,