do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 79/99 by Graham MATHER Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare aspects of the production of foie gras from ducks and geese
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: animal health, animal welfare, livestock farming, meat product, poultry, protection of animals, scientific committee (EU)

6.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 320/125

In the light of these events, does the Commission consider that the Commission’s information office in Sweden
is operating satisfactorily?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0075/99 and P-0076/99
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 1999)

As the Honourable Member states, the President of the Commission wrote personally to Mr Göran Persson,
Prime Minister of Sweden. The President had no intention of questioning the right of the Heads of State and or
Government to comment on information relating to the operation of the Commission as published in the
press. He simply wished to give his colleague his views on the statements reported to him. He was at pains to
point out that his comments assumed that the statement attributed to the Prime Minister had been correctly
interpreted. The Swedish Prime Minister subsequently clarified matters in a letter to the President.

(1999/C 320/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare aspects of

the production of foie gras from ducks and geese

This report, drafted by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare under the auspices of
DG XXIV, was adopted on 16 December 1998.

What action does the Commission propose to take on the basis of this report?

(1999/C 320/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0197/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Production of foie gras

What action is the Commission proposing to take with a view to stopping the cruel force-feeding of birds for
the production of foie gras following the condemnatory report of the Committee of EU Animal Welfare
Experts?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0079/99 and E-0197/99
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

The reason for the preparation of the scientific report on the production of foie-gras, was the discussion in the
Council of Europe of recommendations on welfare of domestic ducks, and on muscovy ducks or hybrids of
muscovy ducks, and on domestic geese in the context of the Convention for the protection of animals kept for
farming purposes (to which the Community is a contracting party).

During 1998, the parties to the Convention agreed to wait for the Commission’s scientific report before
finalizing the recommendations on domestic ducks, muscovy ducks and geese (including ‘foie-gras’ produc-
tion). The first discussion on this subject took place during the meeting of the bureau of the Council of Europe
standing committee on 22 February 1999 to prepare all the documents for the plenary session planned for the
last week of June 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 69/99 by Roberta ANGELILLI Exclusion of capital companies from agritourism grants in Sicily
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, Sicily, aid system, company with share capital, complaint to the Commission, equal treatment, farmer, legal status, rural tourism, social security













EUR-Lex - 91999E0069 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0069

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 69/99 by Roberta ANGELILLI Exclusion of capital companies from agritourism grants in Sicily  


Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/99by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission(27 January 1999)Subject: Exclusion of capital companies from agritourism grants in SicilyTorresalsa turistica SpA has lodged a complaint with the Commission on the grounds that it has been excluded from the grants to farmers for agritourism measures in the region of Sicily because it constituted in the form of a capital company. The grants concerned are made to all other individual farmers or associations of farmers as part of the incentives policy promoted by Community directives.This inevitably involves differential treatment based solely on the legal form of the firm concerned. The discrimination is also regional in that capital companies in other regions of Italy are eligible for the grants in question.In its judgment of 18 December 1986 in a similar case the European Court of Justice (First Chamber) ruled that Member States are not permitted to withhold from legal persons the benefit of provisions of a Community directive solely because they have assumed a certain legal form as this would conflict with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 40(3) of the Treaty. It should also be pointed out that discrimination of this kind is not sanctioned by any law but arises from an administrative interpretation that appears to be completely arbitrary.This view was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Justice, with reference to the second paragraph of Article 40(3) of the EEC Treaty, in its judgments of 15 October 1992 in Case C-162/91 and 6 November 1997 in Case C-164/96.The Commission:1. What action does it intend to take in this case?2. What impact has the complaint by Toresalsa turistica SpA had or what effect is it having?3. What are it's views on this matter?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(11 March 1999)After asking the complainant for clarification the Commission sent the Italian authorities a letter setting out the reasons why, on the basis of Community law, it considers that the administrative authorities of the Region of Sicily are wrong in excluding companies from the benefits accorded to agricultural businesses involved in farm tourism.The Commission will decide what further action to take in the light of Italy's reply. The complainant company has been informed of the steps taken by the Commission to date.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 72/99 by Umberto BOSSI Italy's Istituto Poligrafico
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: BOSSI, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, aid for restructuring, capital increase, competition law, control of State aid, exchange of information, exclusive distribution agreement, infringement procedure (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91999E0072 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0072

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 72/99 by Umberto BOSSI Italy's Istituto Poligrafico  


Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/99by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission(27 January 1999)Subject: Italy's Istituto PoligraficoItaly's Istituto Poligrafico is under scrutiny on the grounds that it may have fallen foul of European anti-trust law.The Commission is investigating injections of capital, in particular the one received at the beginning of 1996 by Cartiere Miliani (which is 97,34 % controlled by the Istituto Poligrafico), and the commercial advantages which the Istituto Poligrafico is reportedly able to secure as a result of its exclusive contracts with the Italian Government. Such practices may contravene the rules relating to state aid.In a letter to the Italian Government the Commission takes the view that the 54 billion lire increase in capital granted in 1996 to the Istituto Poligrafico and to the company it controls may constitute state aid.The investigations being carried out by the Commissioner responsible for competition also cover the 250 billion lire increase in capital which was approved in 1998: Cartiere Miliani appears to have recorded losses of 187 billion lire in 1997 and to have used up all its capital. This act therefore appears to constitute state aid insofar as it does not seem like the type of investment which would have been made by a private investor in a market economy.At the end of its letter the Commission points out that, without such aid, the Istituto Poligrafico and the companies it controls (Cartiere Miliani and Verres) would have recorded substantial losses.Can the Commission state the reasons put forward by the Italian Government to justify the financial dealings involving the Istituto Poligrafico?What action would the Commission take if the Istituto Poligrafico were to be found guilty of contravening European anti-trust laws?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 81/99 by Anita POLLACK Register of contaminated land
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: European Environment Agency, environmental monitoring, environmental research, occupational health, polluted area, public health, soil pollution, water pollution













EUR-Lex - 91999E0081 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0081

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 81/99 by Anita POLLACK Register of contaminated land  


Official Journal C 325 , 12/11/1999 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/99by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission(27 January 1999)Subject: Register of contaminated landIs there any register of contaminated land in the EU? If not, is there a possibility that the Commission might ask the Member States to compile such a register, one which would include the applicant countries?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(9 March 1999)The Commission informs the Honourable Member that no legislation, specifically dealing with soil protection as such, has been passed at the Community level.The European environment agency (EEA) is publishing a report by the European topic centre on soil according to which there are many hundreds of thousands of contaminated sites in the Community. A contaminated site can cause groundwater pollution, health hazards for on-site workers and the general public, and the restriction of future land uses.There is at present no register of contaminated land or sites at Community level. However, the Topic centre on soil, which is part of the EEA system set up by Council Regulation (EEC) 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European environment agency and the European environment information and observation network(1), is planning to carry out this work in the next two years in order to improve the level of reliable information under existing national programmes enabling the collection of comparable information at the European level. This could be the basis for a broader assessment of the extent of contaminated land, the level of contamination and the extent of remediation being achieved, as well as an evaluation of whether further action is needed.This activity will be carried out in collaboration with the Environment institute of the Joint research centre in Ispra, which will contribute, in particular, to the development of indicators of contaminated sites in Europe.(1) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 102/99 by Robin TEVERSON Fifth Framework Programme and geothermal energy
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: EU programme, energy policy, geothermal energy, project evaluation, renewable energy, research and development













EUR-Lex - 91999E0102 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0102

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 102/99 by Robin TEVERSON Fifth Framework Programme and geothermal energy  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0050 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/99by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission(27 January 1999)Subject: Fifth Framework Programme and geothermal energyPrevious EU research and development programmes have specifically mentioned geothermal energy, but the upcoming programme does not. Although the European Parliament adopted an amendment to rectify this omission and include geothermal energy under the renewable energy section in Annex II(a)(v), the Commission did not accept the amendment, and the Council has not included it either.Will the Commission confirm that, despite this omission, this will not jeopardise future funding in this area and that projects relating to geothermal energy will continue to receive their entitled share of funding, in particular as Mrs Cresson has stated that the EU's objective is to increase the percentage of renewable energy use from 6-12 %?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission(25 March 1999)The Community's stated objective of increasing the percentage of renewable energy from 6 % to 12 % is one of the driving forces behind the energy component of the fifth framework programme(1). It is also true that the use of geothermal resources can contribute significantly towards meeting this target, particularly if the Community-supported European hot dry project at Soultz-sous-Forêts, France, continues to live up to the promise which it has shown.Many aspects of geothermal technology are already mature and so would not be considered as high priority issues for research funding. The hot dry rockwork, however, does still require research and, as such, could be eligible for future support.The approach of the fifth framework programme, however, is to focus on problems, not technologies. If research and demonstration projects on geothermal energy can contribute to solving the problems identified in the programme, are appropriate for European rather than purely national funding and can meet the targets suggested in the work programme for renewable energy sources, then they will be treated on an equal footing with other renewable energy projects.(1) OJ C 137, 7.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 63/99 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. European holiday resorts
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: European Commission, municipality, principle of subsidiarity, tourism, tourist infrastructure

C 207/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

(1999/C 207/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0045/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Telemedicine in the public health sector in Greece

(22 January 1999)

The introduction of data-processing in public health has been long delayed in Greece: so far only 15 general
hospitals out of the 143 public hospitals and 173 rural centres in Greece are equipped with computers. These
computers were secured under the IMPs, but have not been upgraded since then and are used chiefly as word
processors. Another consequence of their non-compatibility with up-to-date telecommunications techno-
logies is the total absence of telemedicine in the Greek public health sector. However, the Operational
Programme for Health under the second CSF provides for 24 general hospitals to be equipped with advanced
communications systems, with pilot applications in seven regions of the country.

Will the Commission say:

1. How is the programme to install this technology in the seven pilot regions and the other 17 general

hospitals included in this programme progressing?

2. Given its involvement in programme funding, how long does it believe it will take to introduce

telemedicine applications in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

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

(1999/C 207/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/99

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: European holiday resorts

Holiday resorts have features which set them apart,
in that they must provide for the upkeep of the
infrastructure which they need in periods in which the influx of tourists is high, yet which is superfluous to
their everyday requirements for the remainder of the year.

For that reason, national, regional and local authorities alike are introducing provisions recognising the
specific nature of holiday resorts into the legislation which regulates the tourist industry.

Will the Commission say to what extent the Community provisions affecting the tourist industry can
assimilate the distinction already drawn in national legislation in various Member States, as a means of
assisting those municipalities confronted with a large influx of tourists at certain times of the year?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not consider appropriate to harmonise at the
Community level the provisions introduced by national, regional and local administrations regulating the
activity of tourist resorts.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 188/1999 of 27 January 1999 fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the fifth partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 2269/98
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, olive oil

L 21/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28. 1. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 188/1999

of 27 January 1999

fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the fifth partial invitation to
tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No
2269/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of
22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common
organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (2), and in
particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2269/98 (3)
issued a standing invitation to tender with a view to
determining the export refunds on olive oil;

Whereas Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2269/98
provides that maximum amounts are to be fixed for the
export refunds in the light in particular of the current
situation
the
Community and world olive-oil markets and on the basis
of the tenders received; whereas contracts are awarded to
any tenderer who submits a tender at the level of the
maximum refund or at a lower level;

developments

foreseeable

and

on

Whereas, for the purposes of applying the abovemen-
tioned provisions, the maximum export refunds should be
set at the levels specified in the Annex;

Whereas the Management Committee for Oils and Fats
has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by
its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refunds for olive oil for the fifth
partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation
to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 2269/98 are
hereby fixed in the Annex, on the basis of the tenders
submitted by 23 January 1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 January
1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 January 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 210, 28. 7. 1998, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 284, 22. 10. 1998, p. 25.

28. 1. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 21/11

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 27 January 1999 fixing the maximum export refunds for
olive oil for the fifth partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender
issued by Regulation (EC) No 2269/98

Product code

Amount of refund

(EUR/100 kg)

1509 10 90 9100

1509 10 90 9900

1509 90 00 9100

1509 90 00 9900

1510 00 90 9100

1510 00 90 9900

—

—

—

—

—

—

NB: The product codes and the footnotes are defined in amended

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 71/99 by Roberta ANGELILLI Organisations in arrears and EU grants
Date: 1999-01-27
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, European Commission, Italy, aid recipient, association, fraud against the EU, property leasing, use of aid

C 341/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

(1999/C 341/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Organisations in arrears and EU grants

It has been reported in the press that certain tenants of properties belonging to the IACP in Rome are seriously
behind with their rent payments. The tenants include a number of party and association headquarters.
Amongst those most in arrears are the occupants of huge premises located at piazza S. Maria Liberatrice 45,
scale e/f, namely the Stadion cooperative and the Kemir association.

In some quarters it is thought that the cultural activities promoted by those bodies do not actually take place.

In view of the above, would the Commission say:

1. whether the above organisations receive grants from the European Union;

2. what bodies or offices are responsible for monitoring any funding provided by the EU to those

organisations;

3. whether the organisations in question have received grants in the past and, if so, on what scale;

4. whether or not late payment of rent can be reconciled with the receipt of a grant from the EU;

5. what its general view of the matter is?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

Neither the Stadion cooperative nor the Kemir association, located at the address given, are known to the
Commission’s accounting departments. It should be pointed out that Rome is not on the list of areas eligible to
benefit from the Community’s Structural Funds.

(1999/C 341/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Directive 95/29/EC on the protection of animals during transport

Is the Commission fully satisfied with the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive

1.
95/29/EC (1) on the protection of animals during transport?

Has it received any formal complaints related to the failure of any Member State to meet their obligations

2.
under this Directive?

3. With respect to Questions 1 and 2 above, can it provide details of which provisions of the Directive and
which Member States are concerned?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

1. Most Member States have correctly implemented Council Directive 95/29/EC. Infringement proceedings
are still being pursued against two Member States because certain requirements of the Directive were omitted
from their national measures. The implementation and enforcement of the Community requirements in the
field of animal welfare during transport has been the subject of a series of Commission veterinary inspection
missions to the Member States. These missions have reported inadequate implementation or enforcement in
several Member States.