do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2916/98 by Jean BAGGIONI to the Commission. Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission
Date: 1998-10-02
Institutions: BAGGIONI, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, European official, diplomatic representation, foreign policy

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/137

(1999/C 135/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2916/98

by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission

At official events one frequently meets officials from the various directorates-general claiming to be
‘representatives’ of the Commission. Can the Commission explain the extent to which these officials are
empowered to represent it and to express their views on its behalf? Can it also state whether these officials
are required to inform the political or administrative authorities of the regions or Member States to which
they travel of their presence and of the fact that they are attending these events?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Each official is required to fulfil the obligations written into the Staff Regulations under all circumstances.
Naturally all these provisions apply to officials on mission. The Commission specifies that any official or
other servant who takes part in an official event must be given instructions by his Director-General or
Director, who will determine the role to be played − observer, speaker or organiser in advance.

The official or other servant in question must be in possession of a travel order, duly completed and
signed, whether the mission is within or outside the Community. In the event of a mission to a non-
member country, particularly where the official travels to take part in international negotiations, provision
has been made for coordination between the relevant external relations Directorates. The procedure
includes, among others, checking and authorising the mission in the first place and then coordination with
the Commission delegation in the country to be visited.

(1999/C 135/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2925/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Failure by Greece to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Natura 2000)

The Commission has forwarded a reasoned opinion to the Greek authorities for failure to implement
Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(Natura 2000). The Greek authorities have proposed a list of 196 conservation areas containing priority
natural habitat types and species.

1. Does the Commission know the reasons for the delay by Greece in implementing the directive?

2.

3.

Is the obligation to withhold authorisation for projects with an unfavourable environmental impact in
the 196 listed areas being respected in practice?

If the conservation regulations concerning these 196 areas are infringed, what effective action can be
taken by ecological and other organisations or individual citizens in response to this?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2911/98 by Stephen HUGHES Withdrawal from the EEC Surplus Food Scheme
Date: 1998-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HUGHES STEPHEN
Subjects: Community budget, EU programme, Member States' contribution, United Kingdom, food aid, production surplus

C 320/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Community rules on the protection of animals on farms lay down minimum standards which must be
observed by all Member States. They also allow Member States to introduce or maintain stricter standards for
the protection of animals than would be achieved by the Community rules, but any such national provisions
must be applied in accordance with the general rules of the EC Treaty and must be notified to the Commission.

Bearing in mind that producers may obtain a premium for using more welfare friendly systems, it is not clear
that higher welfare standards necessarily impose an economic disadvantage on those using them.

The World trade organisation (WTO) rules apply to trade between the Community as a whole and other WTO
members. They do not apply to trade between Member States. The possibility of amending WTO rules to take
account of welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community
negotiating objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.

(1999/C 320/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/98

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Withdrawal from the EEC Surplus Food Scheme

Could the Commission indicate the total amount contributed by the British Government to the budget of the
European Union? What proportion of that amount is allocated to the Surplus Food Scheme?

Could the Commission indicate whether the British Government will still have to pay the contributions
relating specifically to the Surplus Food Scheme even though the UK will no longer take part?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

According to the 1999 preliminary draft budget the British share in total Community budget resources will
amount to 13,9 % or 11 606 million euro.The total provision for the scheme for distributing surplus food to
disadvantaged people amounts to 200 million euro. In accordance with normal budgetary principles, the own
resources contributions of the Member States are not allocated to specific expenditure lines.

If the United Kingdom joined the scheme, it would obtain receipts under that scheme. The extent of those
receipts in 1999, based on a formula which takes into account poverty keys, the utilisation of resources in
prior years and the request presented by the Member State, would be in the region of 11 million euro.

(1999/C 320/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Merseyside’s new image

In the context of a new round of Objective 1 measures to benefit Merseyside, does the Commission agree that
the issue of Merseyside’s image must be properly addressed?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2903/98 by Robin TEVERSON WTO negotiations and animal welfare standards
Date: 1998-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: EU production, World Trade Organisation, animal welfare, livestock farming, protection of animals, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91998E2903 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2903

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2903/98 by Robin TEVERSON WTO negotiations and animal welfare standards  


Official Journal C 320 , 06/11/1999 P. 0013 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/98by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission(2 October 1998)Subject: WTO negotiations and animal welfare standardsAnimal welfare standards vary throughout the European Union, with producers in some Member States, in particular, the United Kingdom, facing higher costs because they must comply with more stringent standards. With the next round of WTO negotiations due to start in 1999, how does the Commission intend to protect these EU producers who have to produce to higher animal welfare standards?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(28 October 1998)Community rules on the protection of animals on farms lay down minimum standards which must be observed by all Member States. They also allow Member States to introduce or maintain stricter standards for the protection of animals than would be achieved by the Community rules, but any such national provisions must be applied in accordance with the general rules of the EC Treaty and must be notified to the Commission.Bearing in mind that producers may obtain a premium for using more welfare friendly systems, it is not clear that higher welfare standards necessarily impose an economic disadvantage on those using them.The World trade organisation (WTO) rules apply to trade between the Community as a whole and other WTO members. They do not apply to trade between Member States. The possibility of amending WTO rules to take account of welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiating objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2931/98 by Gérard CAUDRON to the Commission. HGV drivers
Date: 1998-10-02
Institutions: CAUDRON, European Parliament
Subjects: arrangement of working time, carrier, humanisation of work, organisation of work, road cabotage, road safety, road transport, social partners, working time

28.6.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 182/31

The Commission has indicated on several occasions, in particular to Parliament, that it intends to take all the
necessary steps to guarantee both the efficacy of medicine and food safety.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ C 173, 7.6.1997; amended by COM(98) 8 final.

(1999/C 182/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2931/98

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: HGV drivers

The last few days have seen large-scale demonstrations by lorry drivers throughout the Union. Their main
demands concerned working hours.

These demands are all the more urgent as the main consequence of the increased opportunities for cabotage
will be to increase the pressure exerted by their companies on their actual working hours to maximise the rate
of utilisation of their vehicles.

Quite apart from the fact that the lorry drivers will undergo a decline in their quality of life, we have to assess
the impact of these measures on road safety. We hardly need quote the long list of road accidents attributable
to driver fatigue. The indirect and often tragic consequences have been plain to see.

Will the Commission therefore consider harmonising working time for road haulage drivers at European
Union level and conduct research into the impact of cabotage on working time?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

The Commission intends shortly to produce a package of proposals in order to provide workers who are not
currently covered by Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working
time (1) (the Working Time Directive) with protection against adverse effects on their health and safety caused
by excessively long working hours, inadequate rest or disruptive working patterns. The package will include a
proposal to amend the Working Time Directive to cover all non-mobile workers in road transport, and a
proposal for a specific directive on working time for mobile workers in road transport. That latter proposal
will take full account of the results so far reached in the negotiations between the road transport social
partners, and it will also contain provisions for self-employed drivers and mobile workers in own account
transport undertakings.

The latest Commission report on cabotage (2) indicated that in 1995 the share of cabotage operations in
national markets was about 0,25 %. This situation is not expected to change sharply following the abolition of
cabotage quotas after 1 July 1998. While it is obviously too early to gather statistics on the situation after 1 July
1998, recent indications reveal a reduction in the use of cabotage authorizations in 1996 and 1997 which
would tend to support the conclusions of the above-mentioned Commission report.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2) COM(98) 47 final.