do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3480/98 by John IVERSEN to the Commission. Food aid for North Korea
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: EU programme, North Korea, aid to agriculture, food aid, food shortage, non-governmental organisation, public health, technical cooperation













EUR-Lex - 91998E3480 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3480

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3480/98 by John IVERSEN to the Commission. Food aid for North Korea  


Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/98by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission(25 November 1998)Subject: Food aid for North KoreaThere is now daily media coverage of the food situation which has grown worse in North Korea, from where several cases of cannibalism have been reported.Further to the question I tabled in September last year, will the Commission now say what the situation is as regards the food aid which the EU has already given, and which it will give, to the people of North Korea.Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission(22 January 1999)For the last two years, the Commission has been closely monitoring the food security situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). There are undeniably food shortages although the extent cannot be precisely verified, given only partial co-operation from the authorities. As might be expected, there is also evidence of adverse consequences on the health and nutritional status of the population. Nevertheless, sensationalist rumours of cannibalism have not been substantiated by the 100 western expatriates now based in the DPRK assisting in the various aid programmes.International food aid deliveries over the last two years in total amount to approximately 1,5 million tonnes. The Commission, acting on behalf of the Community, has provided considerable quantities of food aid products targeted at the most vulnerable sections of the population. The total value of this food aid and food security support in 1997-1998 has now reached 100 millions euro. This assistance has been channelled through the World food programme (WFP), European non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an expatriate presence and bilaterally. The bilateral support in 1998 has been monitored by a Commission financed technical assistance team. In addition to food aid and support for agricultural rehabilitation, the Commission has also granted in excess of 24 millions euro for public health, sanitation and emergency nutritional support over the same period.The Commission is presently reflecting on the modalities of a possible food aid and agricultural rehabilitation programme for DPRK in 1999. No final decision has yet been taken. Since the shortages are mainly structural (the by-product of DPRK's agricultural and wider economic policies), the Commission therefore takes the view that in order to be efficient and sustainable its assistance will need to be accompanied by policy adaptations from the DPRK authorities. These should aim to modernise agricultural practices and start to implement more far-reaching market-oriented initiatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3520/98 by Amedeo AMADEO Aeroplane conversion plants
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, air transport, airport, civil aviation, environmental protection, noise, noise level, transport safety

11.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/55

difficulties encountered by some, the Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern and intends to
draw their attention again to the importance of respecting the set date.

As it falls to the Commission under Article 6(3) first indent of Regulation (EC) 820/97 to judge whether each
database is fully operational, it submitted to the Council and Parliament the proposal mentioned by the
Honourable Member. Work on it is not yet complete within the Council. In the meantime a questionnaire has
been sent to all Member States and following receipt of the first replies the first Commission decisions
recognising databases should be issued in the first half of 1999.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.

(1999/C 289/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Aeroplane conversion plants

With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation on the registration and use within the Community of
certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the
standards of Vol. I, Part II, Chapter III of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third
edition (July 1993) (COM(98) 0098 final 7 98/0070/SYN) (1), although the objective of this proposal is
laudable, this being to improve both protection of the environment and air transport safety whilst at the same
time safeguarding existing programmes for the renewal of the fleets of European Union airlines as laid down in
Directive 92/14/EEC, I would take issue with the exemption laid down in Article 4(2) in respect of civil
aeroplanes exclusively operated outside the territory of the Community or in the overseas departments of
France.

In view of the strain which the proposed directive will place on air freight companies because those aeroplanes
are relatively older and mainly use airports at night, can the Commission devise procedures to prevent the
likelihood of flags of convenience springing up by virtue of the temporary exemption laid down in Article 3(3),
which would lead to unfair competition against Community undertakings?

(1) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998, p. 20.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

Since the prime objective of the proposed measure is to prevent a further worsening of the noise at airports
located in the European territory of the Community, it was not justified to include in the scope of the measure
aircraft which are not operated in that territory. This would impose an unreasonable economic burden on
certain operators without any environmental benefit for the most noise sensitive airports in the Community. If
the Commission receives complaints of any abuses of the exemptions possibility, it will of course act upon
them in accordance with established procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3523/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Denied-boarding compensation system
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification

28.6.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 182/91

(1999/C 182/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Counterfeit and pirated goods

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit the
release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated
goods (COM(98) 25 final * 98/0018 ACC) (1), can the Commission call the attention of the national
governments to the urgent need for a speedier procedure as requested in the third part of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 63.

(1999/C 182/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3513/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Counterfeit and pirated goods

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit the
release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated
goods (COM(98) 25 final * 98/0018 ACC) (1), it should be noted that the system is faced with an unusual
difficulty in that at Community level the scope of the rules is limited whilst the implementing procedures are to
be laid down by national legislation.

For economic reasons, can the Commission harmonise that legislation so that the main provisions in this field
can be applied effectively?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 63.

(1999/C 182/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Denied-boarding compensation system

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-
boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (COM(98) 0041 final * 98/022 SYN) (1), can the
Commission propose a clear method of calculating increases in denied-boarding compensation and a
procedure for consulting the Member States and interested parties before adopting such increases?

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3511/98, E-3512/98, E-3513/98 and E-3523/98
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings
as soon as possible.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2525/98 of 25 November 1998 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 17th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

26. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 317/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2525/98

of 25 November 1998

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 17th partial invitation
to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1148/98 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 17 (5) (b) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 of 22
July 1998 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
levies and/or
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1574/98 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the state
the Community and
and foreseeable development of
world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender
in question;

following an examination of

the tenders
Whereas,
submitted in response to the 17th partial invitation to
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 17th partial invitation to tender for white sugar
to Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 the
issued pursuant
maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at ECU
49,203 per 100 kilograms.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 November
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 25 November 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 38.
(3) OJ L 206, 23. 7. 1998, p. 7.
98/698/EC: Commission Decision of 25 November 1998 on the carrying out of Community comparative trials and tests on vegetable propagating material in accordance with Article 20(2) of Council Directive 92/33/EEC (notified under document number C(1998) 3636)
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community certification, analytical chemistry, health legislation, plant health control, seedling, vegetable

L 332/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 12. 98

COMMISSION DECISION

of 25 November 1998

on the carrying out of Community comparative trials and tests on vegetable
in accordance with Article 20(2) of Council Directive
propagating material

92/33/EEC

(notified under document number C(1998) 3636)

(98/698/EC)

Propagating Material
Forestry,

for Agriculture, Horticulture and

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. Comparative Community trials and tests shall be
carried out in 1998/99 on Allium sativum propagating
material.

2.

The samples shall be officially taken.

3. All Member States on whose territory Allium
sativum propagating material is regularly propagated or
marketed shall participate in the comparative trials and
tests.

Article 2

The detailed rules on implementing the comparative
Community trials and tests and on evaluating the results
shall be made within the Standing Committee on Seeds
and Propagating Material
for Agriculture, Horticulture
and Forestry.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 November 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28
April 1992 on the marketing of vegetable propagating and
planting material, other than seed (1), as last extended by
Commission Decision 97/109/EC (2), and in particular
Article 20(2) thereof,

in accordance with the Directive,

trials or,
Whereas,
where appropriate,
in the
Member States on samples to check that vegetable propa-
gating and planting material other than seeds complies
with the Directive’s requirements and conditions;

tests are to be carried out

to this end, appropriate and representative
Whereas,
sampling of
the different production and marketing
origins across the Community should be ensured during
the Directive’s initial implementation phase, at least in
the case of certain plant species;

Whereas comparative Community trials and tests should
be performed in 1998/99 on Allium sativum propagating
material;

the appropriate conclusions can be
Whereas, so that
drawn, all Member States on whose territory Allium
sativum propagating material is regularly propagated or
marketed will be required to participate in the trials and
tests;

Whereas the comparative Community trials and tests will
be used in the first place to standardise the technical
methods for checking the propagating material for this
plant species;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the Standing Committee on Seeds and

(1) OJ L 157, 10. 6. 1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 39, 8. 2. 1997, p. 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3491/98 by Luigi MORETTI to the Commission. Presence of radio and television transmission towers in built-up areas
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, MORETTI
Subjects: electromagnetic interference, health risk, public health, report, safety standard

21.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 207/77

(1999/C 207/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3491/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Presence of radio and television transmission towers in built-up areas

Radio and television transmission towers are increasingly being erected in the vicinity of built-up areas, and
sometimes even in town centres.

In view of the fact that the electromagnetic waves produced by these towers constitute a threat to public
health, which is reflected in the growing incidence of health problems such as deafness, sleeping disorders,
leukemia, etc:

1. Does the Commission intend to make it clearer that such towers located in built-up areas are potentially

dangerous?

2. Does it intend to consider drafting a proposal for a regulation laying down a safe distance for such towers

from houses and, in particular, from schools and hospitals?

(1999/C 207/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3724/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Radiation from electromagnetic fields and its effect on public health

Is the Commission aware of any research into the effects of electromagnetic fields (created by telecommunica-
tion masts and overhead electricity wires) on human health or that of livestock grazing around these fields? If
no research has been carried out, would the Commission consider undertaking research into the effects on
public health of radiation from electromagnetic fields? If public health is found to be threatened in some way,
would the Commission consider introducing legislation to enable local, regional or national authorities to
regulate proposals to erect telecommunications masts?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3491/98 and P-3724/98
given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

In June 1998 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council recommendation on the limitation of
exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (1). It takes account of the scientific opinion of the
International commission on non-ionising radiation, supported by the Commission’s scientific steering
committee. This text is currently being discussed by the Council, which has also transmitted the text for
opinion to the Parliament.

The results of current and future research in this area will be considered in the context of the reporting
procedure provided in this text.

(1) COM(98) 268 final.

(1999/C 207/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3492/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Pollution of surface water

The drainage systems in built-up areas are often not designed to convey surface water, or water from recent
rainfall, to water treatment plants. As a result, these waters flow into rivers, streams and lakes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3501/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Unilateral investment sanctions
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, KINNOCK
Subjects: Myanmar/Burma, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, member country

C 142/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

(1999/C 142/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3501/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Unilateral investment sanctions

If an EU Member State were to impose unilateral financial sanctions on Burma (on serious political
grounds and as a matter of urgency under Article 73g (2) of the EC Treaty), would the Commission
propose that the Council overturn the Member State’s decision or bring proceedings against that Member
State on the grounds of a perceived breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2119/98 (1).

It is not Commission policy to answer hypothetical questions.

(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.

(1999/C 142/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3502/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Subject: The Wassenaar Committee

Within the framework of the EU there is a body known as the Wassenaar committee, whose work is
alleged to include studying the encryption of data communications and coding systems. Its secretariat is in
Vienna. What duties does this Committee have, what is its status within the EU and in what form are the
encryption plans it has presumably put forward dealt with by the EU?

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

(3 December 1998)

The Wassenaar arrangement is the successor to the Coordination committee for export to communist area
(COCOM) regime. Definitively implemented with the adoption of ‘initial elements’ in July 1996 by 33
founding members including the United States, Russia and all Union Member States, it deals with export
controls and information-exchange related to dual-use items and conventional arms. The Community as
such is not party to the arrangement.

The items covered by the Wassenaar arrangement include encryption products. As the entire Wassenaar
dual-use list is integrated into the Union list of controlled dual-use products (Council Decision 942/
94CFSP of 19 December 1994 on the joint action adopted by the Council of the basis of Article J.3 of the
Treaty on European Union concerning the control of exports of dual-use goods (1) as subsequently
amended), encrypted products covered by the Wassenaar list are subject to control when exported from the
Community. Any changes to control scope in Wassenaar (for instance decontrol of certain items) lead to
corresponding changes in the Union list.

The arrangement has a permanent secretariat based in Vienna. Information about the work of the
arrangement can be found on the Website www. wassenaar.org.

(1) OJ L 367, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3739/98 by David THOMAS to the Commission. Agenda 2000 budget
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, THOMAS
Subjects: Community budget, European Court of Auditors, agricultural product, prices, reform of the CAP, report

C 207/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Commission has recently had a considerable amount of mail about the position of people working for
Andersen B.P.M. Ellas (S.A.) and this is now being studied.

The Commission will ensure Community law is correctly applied, by virtue of the powers conferred on it by
the EC Treaty.

(1999/C 207/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/98

by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: VAT on golf-club membership

Will the Commission state whether VAT may legally be charged in Spain on membership of sporting
organisations such as golf clubs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

According to Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the 6th VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1), Member States exempt certain
services closely linked to sport or physical education supplied by non-profitmaking organisations to people
taking part in sport or physical education.

New Spanish legislation, in force since 1 January 1999, applies a general exemption for sports activities under
the conditions laid down by the 6th Directive. Consequently, membership of sporting organisations, such as
golf clubs, fulfilling these conditions, is exempt from VAT in Spain.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(1999/C 207/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3739/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000 budget

The recent Court of Auditors’ report claims that the Commission has seriously miscalculated the cost of its
Agenda 2000 proposals and that they could exceed the EU’s budget by billions of pounds. Can the
Commission say if this is a correct assessment of what is likely to happen?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

On 29 May 1998 the Council asked the Court of Auditors to send it any comments it might have on the
financial aspects of the legislative proposals relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP),
the Structural Funds, pre-accession aid and the guarantee fund for external action, presented by the
Commission as part of Agenda 2000. On 29 October 1998 the Court adopted opinion 10/98 on these
matters.