do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3187/98 by David THOMAS to the Commission. Meat hygiene: Poultry
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, THOMAS
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, health certificate, health legislation, national implementing measure, poultrymeat, veterinary inspection

C 297/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

15.10.1999

(1999/C 297/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3178/98

by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Medicine residues in horse meat

In view of the public concern over medicine residues in foodstuffs and the fact that animals, including
racehorses, need to be treated for diseases:

1. What will the Commission do to ensure that MRL (Maximum Residue Limits) are laid down for all

essential medicines and that the latter can be afforded by all horse owners?

2.

Since professional racehorses receive considerable amounts of medicine during their career, how will the
Commission ensure that they do not end up as food?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-41/99 by
Mr De Coene (1).

(1)

See page 139.

(1999/C 297/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3187/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Meat hygiene: Poultry

Does the Commission know how many Member States have successfully fully implemented the Poultry Meat
Directive (71/118/EEC) (1)? Can the Commission also confirm whether all Member States have properly
enforced the presence of at least one official veterinary surgeon in slaughter houses, as required under this
Directive?

(1) OJ L 55, 8.3.1971, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that all the Member States have notified the national
measures taken in order to comply with Directive 71/118/EEC on health problems affecting the trade in fresh
poultry meat as amended and updated by Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 (1). In order to
verify the application of this directive the Veterinary and phytosanitary office carried out in 1994 and 1995
evaluation visits in all the Member States. The findings have been presented to the Member States and
discussed with them. Some deficiencies in transposition and implementation and in particular in the field of
the presence of the official veterinarian have been pointed out in some Member States. Recommendations for
modification of the existing legislation are being considered during the preparation of the ‘simplification
project’.

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that it is for the time being short of staff in the
sector of veterinary inspection. Further verification of the application of the requirements of Council
Directives 71/118/EEC is necessary, but the Commission can only use its scarce resources to address a
limited number of priorities. A procedure to recruit new staff has been initiated and the poultry sector will
become one of the priorities of the Food and veterinary office.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3207/98 by Livio FILIPPI to the Commission. Closure of Solvay plant in Ferrara
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, FILIPPI
Subjects: Italy, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, job preservation, labour law, multinational enterprise, worker consultation, worker information, works council

C 118/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Concerning the Commission(cid:146)s position on the early closure of Kozloduy nuclear power plant units 1 to 4,
the Honourable Member is referred to the answer the Commission gave to his written question
E-2174/98 (2). The importance of closing these units at realistic dates in accordance with the nuclear
safety account agreement with Bulgaria was emphasised again on the occasion of the meeting between the
President of the Commission and the Prime Minister of Bulgaria on 8 October 1998.

(1) OJ L 82, 29.3.1990.
(2) See page 38.

(1999/C 118/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3207/98

by Livio Filippi (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Closure of Solvay plant in Ferrara

Solvay has decided to close a plant employing 200 workers in Ferrara, prompting justified protests by
local trade unions and organizations.

It has become all too frequent for multinational companies to lay off workers or close down plants with no
concern for the social effects of their actions.

Will the Commission therefore ascertain whether the company has complied with the obligation to consult
its workers laid down in the directive on the European works council and say what steps it plans to take to
ensure that the basic rights of workers are respected with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The Commission is aware of problems in relation to the closure of a Solvay production plant in Ferrara
(Italy).

Article 13 of Council Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European works council or a procedure
in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
informing and consulting employees (1) gave the social partners the possibility to conclude a voluntary
agreement on the establishment of a European works council in order to fulfil the obligations set out in the
Directive. Such an Article 13 agreement exists in the Solvay group, but the Commission has no
information for the time being as to whether or not this agreement was fully respected in the context
of the closure of the plant in Ferrara. More information is being sought.

It must be emphasised that, in the first instance, the Member States are responsible for the implementation,
application and enforcement of Community directives.

(1) OJ L 10, 16.1.1998.

(1999/C 118/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)

Given that negotiations in the OECD have resumed with a view to reaching agreement on the MAI, what
role does the Commission now intend to play, and will Parliament have a further opportunity to make its
views known when a revised text is being drawn up?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3137/98 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament
Subjects: EU programme, European Court of Auditors, European Social Fund, budgetary control, co-financing, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91998E3137 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3137

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3137/98 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0170 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/98by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission(16 October 1998)Subject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESFIn its reply to Written Question P-1145/98(1) the Commission said that the services performed by a company for the consortium to which it is associated with regard to training activities under programmes co-funded by the ESF are legitimate, as is the charging of market prices for those services. It thus clearly confirms that the non-profitability obligation falls on the training body and not on its associates.As regards the attainment of uniformity of the checkable method referred to in datasheet No 4 (expenditure eligible under the Structural Funds), which of the following methods is compatible in respect of market prices:(a) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than the parametres set by the European Union?(b) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than at least two other offers made to the training body by other persons (as laid down in a decision by the European Court of Auditors in some previous cases)?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission(30 November 1998)Further to its answer to the Honourable Member's written question No P-1145/98, the Commission would like to point out that the uniformity of expenditure on training is the subject of a specific provision of Community regulations. Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 2084/93(2) states that "the Commission shall ensure that Fund expenditure for training operations of the same type does not develop in different ways".To do this, in accordance with the committee's opinion and Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88(3), it determines for each Member State, in agreement with that State, the indicative average amounts of expenditure according to the type of training involved. Comparable costs, subsequently defined in Ministry of Labour Circular No 98/95, are agreed at the place of establishment of the partnership, with reference to teacher categories, while Circular No 101/97 from the same Ministry defines the occupational categories and the relevant payment ceilings.This means that the prices reported must comply with the parameters laid down in the Ministry of Labour circulars referred to.(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 80.(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.(3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3077/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. Fines for road traffic offences
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: European driving licence, Schengen Agreement, fine, highway code, road safety, road traffic, traffic control, traffic regulations

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/165

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

(10 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about Russia’s economic and financial
situation.

Today, there are no outstanding credits with Russia. Those granted in 1991 (Community guarantee for
export credits worth ECU 500 million, and ECU 1 250 million loan to the ex-Union of Soviet Socialist
republics (USSR) for food and medical aid) were fully paid back. No macroeconomic assistance has ever
been granted to Russia.

As regards the possibility of new credits to help Russia overcome its present financial crisis, the
Commission will follow the guidelines set by the Cardiff European Council. Any eventual macroeco-
nomic assistance should be provided through the international financial institutions and should be linked
to the implementation by the Russian government of a credible economic reform policy.

(1999/C 135/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Fines for road traffic offences

The Council’s Working Party on the Schengen acquis is at present reviewing the Schengen acquis in
preparation for the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, according to the media, work
is in progress on a draft ‘Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal proceedings for offences
against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for such offences’.

− Has the Council come across any plans of this nature in connection with the Schengen acquis?

− Does the Council know of any plans in this regard, and if so at what stage are they?

− What is the specific content of these plans?

− How is the problem of the differences between the substance and procedure of the regulations in force

in the various Member States to be solved?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council is not in a position to inform the European Parliament regarding draft instruments being
examined within the Schengen context. However, the Council understands that the Schengen Presidency
regularly informs the relevant bodies of the European Parliament on work in progress.

(1999/C 135/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Fines for road traffic offences

According to the press, work is in progress on a draft ‘Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal
proceedings for offences against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for such
offences’.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3088/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Danube development project
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, application of EU law, environmental protection, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, watercourse

C 135/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

− Does the Commission know of any plans of this nature?

− Has the Commission come across any plans in this regard in connection with the review of the

Schengen acquis, and at what stage are they?

− What is the specific content of these plans?

− How is the problem of the differences between the substance and procedure of the regulations in force

in the various Member States to be solved?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

1. to 3.
Until the Amsterdam Treaty incorporating the Schengen acquis into the Union framework
comes into effect, Schengen work falls within the intergovernmental framework, and the Commission is
unable to give any details regarding it.

4. Within the field of Justice and Home Affairs, work was concluded in June 1998 in the Council, with
the Commission’s participation, establishing a convention between all Member States ensuring that traffic
offences leading to disqualification from driving committed in another Member State than where the
offender is residing, will be given effect by the Member State of residence, when the offender returns
there. This convention was adopted by the Council on 17 June 1998, and has to be ratified by the Member
States before it enters into force.

(1999/C 135/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Danube development project

The Commission’s letter of 28 October 1997 reminding the Federal Republic of Germany of its
obligations obviously had no effect.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Federal Government and the Land of
Bavaria delay no longer in designating the area as protected?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

the
As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3095/97 (1),
Commission has decided to deal with this case within the infringement proceedings concerning the
insufficient designation of special protected areas according to the Council Directive 79/409/EEC (2) of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds in Germany. The area concerned, as well as other areas
along the river Danube, is specifically highlighted in the context of this general procedure.

In the context of these infringement proceedings, the Commission sent a supplementary letter of formal
notice to the German authorities. The German authorities replied and also notified the designation of a
range of areas as special protected areas. However, given that neither the reply nor the designation of
further areas are considered sufficient with a view to the obligation under the Directive 79/409/EEC, the
Commission has decided to address a reasoned opinion to the Germany.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3118/98 by Winifred EWING to the Commission. Vessel modernisation and rebuilding
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: EWING, European Parliament
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, industrial reorganisation, modernisation aid, shipbuilding, vessel

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/169

Germany’s holiday-fund measures should be examined in the light of these provisions. In February 1998,
a German industrial tribunal submitted to the Court of Justice references for preliminary rulings on the
present holiday-fund scheme in Germany. The Commission has also received numerous complaints from
businesses in other Member States (but not from Luxembourg so far). Given that the German authorities
have no intention of suspending the application of their scheme in the light of these references, the
Commission is dealing with the matter under the procedure set out in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(1999/C 135/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/98

by Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Vessel modernisation and rebuilding

Will the Commission state what sums for vessel modernisation and rebuilding have been advanced by
Member States?

Which States have made such advances?

What amounts have been so applied and how many vessels have been affected?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf the Commission

(13 November 1998)

Following the preparation of the monitoring report in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive
90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (1), four Member States (Denmark, Germany,
Italy and Spain) have in recent years reported contracts for the conversion of ships (ie. the making of
radical alterations) supported by state aid.

The most recent global figures available are, for 1995, 23 contracts for conversion with a total contract
value of ECU 231,2 million supported by ECU 10,3 million of aid, and, for 1996, 29 contracts for
conversion with a total contract value of ECU 484,9 million supported by ECU 19,3 million of aid. The
amount of aid represents some 4,5 % of the contract value, the maximum ceiling authorisable by the
Commission.

(1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.

(1999/C 135/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Definition of rejection

According to the Sole 24 Ore of Wednesday 16 September the Commission has revolutionised the
confused European scenario as regards interpretation of the definition of rejection and in particular has
identified new principles, thereby reopening the whole question of this complex affair.

1. What specifically are these new principles that could revolutionise the subject?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3109/98 by Ingo FRIEDRICH to the Commission. Book entitled 'Konservatismus und Rechtradikalismus' ('Conservatism and right- wing radicalism')
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, FRIEDRICH INGO
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, EU programme, cultural pluralism, extreme left, extreme right, publication, racism, xenophobia, young person

15.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 297/47

(1999/C 297/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/98

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Application of Council Regulation (EEC) 3693/93

Given the importance of Council Regulation (EEC) 3696/93 (1), which is designed to harmonise the criteria
governing the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) in the EU:

Will the Commission say to what extent the said regulation has been applied in the various Member States?

Has it established a monitoring or control procedure of any kind to verify whether the regulation is indeed
being applied?

Does it have any evidence that the regulation may have been breached in the Member States? If so, what form
have the penalties imposed taken?

(1) OJ L 342, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Council Regulation (EEC) 3696/93 of 29 October 1993 on the statistical classification of products by activity
(CPA) in the Community as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 1232/98 (1) provided a framework to
ensure comparability between national and Community classifications and hence national and Community
statistics.

The Regulation permits the Member States wishing to use a national classification derived from the CPA to do
so. Nine Member States (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and
Sweden) have developed national product classifications linked to CPA. Six Member States (Belgium,
Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) ensure that sectorial applications are
harmonised with CPA.

The Commission is monitoring developments through the statistical programme committee (SPC) as
established by Article 4 of the Regulation. An additional audit is foreseen in 1999 as part of the procedure
for the next update of CPA in 2002.

(1) OJ L 177, 22.6.1998.

(1999/C 297/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3109/98

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Book entitled ‘Konservatismus und Rechtradikalismus’ (‘Conservatism and right- wing radicalism’)

Is it true that the Commission has financed or supported ‘Konservatismus und Rechtradikalismus’, a book with
a foreword by Emil Carlebach, a member of the national executive of the DKP (the German Communist Party),
and Peter Gingold?

If so, why is the Commission funding anti-democratic, left-wing radical authors of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1998)

The Youth for Europe programme gives young people the opportunity to develop projects at a local level. This
provides them with valuable experience of working on their own initiative (Action A.II.1 youth initiatives).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3120/98 by Raimo ILASKIVI to the Commission. The Leonia Bank's monopoly
Date: 1998-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, ILASKIVI
Subjects: Finland, State monopoly, bank, competition law, monopoly

21.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 142/87

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

The establishment of a liberalised civil aviation market in the Community on 1 January 1993 ended
differences between scheduled and non-scheduled air services in respect of access to intra-Community
links. Consequently, no particular provisions govern the service provisions of charter flights in Europe.

Nevertheless, Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
package tours (1) provides certain provisions for passengers travelling on a package tour. According to
Article 4 of this Directive, the tour organiser has a liability for compensating the consumer for any
difference between the services offered and those supplied. Delays are not, however, expressly covered.

Passengers buying transport on non-scheduled flights are not currently covered by this Directive.
A Council regulation (2) which amends Regulation (EEC) 295/91 of 4 February 1991 should remedy
that omission by extending the rules for a denied boarding compensation system to non-scheduled flights.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(2) COM(98) 580 final.

(1999/C 142/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: The Leonia Bank’s monopoly

The Leonia Bank, which is owned by the Finnish State, has enjoyed a total monopoly on payment
transactions on behalf of the State. These transactions have not been subjected to competitive tendering,
although the competition authority and other financial institutions have called for this to be done.
According to the most recently published statement on the subject (published on 29 September 1998), the
Finance Ministry did not consider it necessary to invite competitive tenders because the bank so far
remains wholly owned by the State.

Is it right to exclude healthy competition from the State’s financial affairs, particularly the execution of
payment transactions, and if not, what will the Commission do to enforce competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that monopolies as such are not prohibited.
However, in the case of a state monopoly such as the one referred to, Article 90 of the EC Treaty is
applicable in so far as it stipulates that, as regards public undertakings and undertakings to which they
grant special or exclusive rights, Member States must not enact or maintain in force any measures contrary
to the EC Treaty.

In the case of Leonia Bank, the Commission does not possess sufficient information for it to determine
whether or not the Community competition rules have been complied with.