do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Harm to wearers of pacemakers from shop security systems.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, electro-magnetic equipment, electromagnetic interference, health risk, medical device, product safety, public health, technical standard

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/167

sensitised consumers, by ensuring that these fragrance ingredients be mentioned in the list of ingredients.
Furthermore, the SCCNFP is currently reviewing the scientific data on these ingredients in order to identify
safe use levels which will be introduced into Directive 76/768/ECC.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2001/C 261 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Harm to wearers of pacemakers from shop security systems

Patients wearing pacemakers have been warned by National Health Service Trusts in the UK that some
security systems installed by high street shops, in the form of (cid:145)walk-through(cid:146) gates, may pose a threat to
the continued functioning of this vital aid.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on making it compulsory that shops take responsibility for warning
customers quite clearly that their system may pose a danger, before they enter the premises?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

To-date the Commission has not received any information on the warning by National Health Service
Trusts in the United Kingdom that shop security systems may pose a threat to the continued functioning
of pacemakers referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission will request information
on this warning and consider its implications with Member States.

The Commission raised the question with Member States during the Low Voltage Directive Working Party
in June 1999, dealing with the safety of electrical appliances.

All Member States were asked if they had any reports of incidents relating to this and whether there was a
need to consider taking preventive measures. No incidents were identified and, as a consequence, Member
States were of the opinion that further legislation was unnecessary.

As outlined in the reply to written question E-1595/98 by Mrs Jackson (1), the problem is, to an extent,
addressed in the European standard for pacemakers, issued by the European standardisation body Cenelec,
which addresses the immunity of pacemakers to certain types of electromagnetic fields.

Therefore, at present, the Commission has no plans to impose additional legislation in this area.

(1) OJ C 13, 20.1.1999.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 417/2001 of 1 March 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

2.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 417/2001

of 1 March 2001

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

the standard
In compliance with the above criteria,
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
in
standard values for imports from third countries,
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 March 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 1 March 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

L 62/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2001

to the Commission Regulation of 1 March 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the
entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
624
999
052
999
052
204
999
052
204
212
624
999
600
999
388
400
404
508
512
720
728
999
388
400
512
528
720
999

109,4
45,2
95,4
127,8
94,4
91,6
91,6
106,3
70,6
88,4
66,3
45,8
49,8
53,4
53,8
53,3
53,3
111,1
83,4
77,9
93,2
108,6
121,1
101,4
99,5
74,8
98,8
78,2
78,1
54,6
76,9

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2000 (OJ L 243, 28.9.2000, p. 14). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Water which is unfit to drink in Andalusia.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, application of EU law, drinking water, water resources, water supply

C 261 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

It is not possible to predict any potential impact on public health of storing radioactive waste in Albanian
mines without information about the mines, the quantities and nature of any waste involved and the
technologies being used to ensure its safe management.

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.

(2001/C 261 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0579/01

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Water which is unfit to drink in Andalusia

(1 March 2001)

The regional government of Andalusia (Spain) has itself admitted that the water supplied to more than two
hundred thousand people is either constantly or sporadically unfit to drink. A total of 166 communities,
most of them in the provinces of Almer(cid:237)a and Granada, suffered problems of this nature in 1999.

This surprising and alarming admission on the part of the Andalusian Government highlights the stark
reality that even today the Community can be faced with situations such as this, in which a large number
of people find themselves without access to drinking water.

Will the Commission say how, given the Community provisions in this regard, a situation can possibly
arise in which a large number of people find themselves without access to drinking water? What urgent
measures would it be prepared to endorse with a view to ridding the Community of this vestige of
underdevelopment as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

The piece of Community environment legislation which might be applicable in this case is Council
Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consump-
tion. (1)

It should be pointed out that Directive 80/778/EEC is to be replaced by Council Directive 98/83/EC of
3 November 1998, (2) the deadline for the transposition of which expired on 25 December 2000. The
Member States must apply the provisions of the new Directive by 25 December 2003 at the latest.

The two Directives referred to above lay down requirements regarding the quality of water intended for
human consumption, and require the Member States to take steps to ensure they are met.

The information provided by the Honourable Member does not enable the Commission to deliver an
opinion as to whether Community law is being complied with. The Commission is willing to receive
in order to
additional information on the matter, such as the names of the municipalities concerned,
determine whether the Community environment law applicable in this case is being fully complied with.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/01 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Cat and dog fur in the EU.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal skin, domestic animal, hides and furskins industry, import

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/85

On the question of racism in the Candidate Countries, the Commission recalls its Communication to the
European Council in Cologne on June 1999 on Countering Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism in the
Candidate Countries (4), which considered the actions already taken and being taken by the Union and by
the candidate countries themselves to combat racism and which made proposals for further measures.

The Commission also recalls the Joint Action adopted by the Council on 15 July 1996 concerning action
to combat racism and xenophobia (5). The main objective of the Joint Action is to facilitate effective police
and judicial co-operation between the Member States to deal with the racist crimes, by preventing the
perpetrators from taking advantage of differences in legislation within the Union in order to escape justice.
The Joint Action is part of the (cid:145)acquis communautaire(cid:146) and candidate countries will need to implement it
in the same way as for other Union legislative measures. Furthermore, the Commission will present this
year a proposal transforming the joint action in a framework decision including possible improvements to
this instrument.

The implementation of appropriate measures to ensure the respect for human rights and to combat racist
violence are being considered as part of the preparations for accession.

The Commission has not raised specific incidents or the existence of specific organisations in this context.

(1) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
(3) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
(4) COM(1999) 256 final.
(5) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.

(2001/C 318 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/01

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Cat and dog fur in the EU

With regard to the Commission proposals laying down strict health rules concerning animal by-products
not intended for human consumption and, in particular, the special conditions for the placing on the
is the Commission aware that dog chews are being
market,
manufactured from animal hides from cats and dogs slaughtered for their pelts in China and other parts of
Asia?

trade and importance of dog chews,

Is it aware that the EU may become a dumping ground for such products now that the US has imposed
a blanket ban on imports?

What steps is it taking to prevent such products from entering the EU?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The import of petfood into the Community is subject to strict Community animal health and certification
rules. In particular, import of dog chews is allowed only if they are made from skins of ungulates.

The Commission has no data or information concerning the manufacturing or marketing of dog chews
from animal hides of cats and dogs. It would ask the Honourable Member to transmit any evidence he has
regarding such practices.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 419/2001 of 1 March 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1701/2000
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, common wheat, export, export refund, third country

2.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 62/11

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 419/2001

of 1 March 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender
issued in Regulation (EC) No 1701/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of
29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the
granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be
taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2513/98 (4), and in
particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund on exportation of
common wheat to all third countries with the exclusion
of certain ACP States was opened pursuant to Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 1701/2000 (5), as last amended
by Regulation (EC) No 293/2001 (6).

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that
the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti-
in accordance with the procedure laid down in
fied,

Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix
a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria
referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the cereal in question results
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
the
amount specified in Article 1.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
the Management
accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 23 February to 1 March 2001,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC)
the maximum refund on exportation of
No 1701/2000,
common wheat shall be EUR 9,00/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 March 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 1 March 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 313, 21.11.1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 18.
(6) OJ L 43, 14.2.2001, p. 10.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/01 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Primarolo Group.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Ecofin, administration of the Institutions, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions

C 261 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Will the Commission investigate this case and determine whether John Spencer(cid:146)s rights under Directive 89/
48/EEC have been breached?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 206.
(3) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 371.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the case of Mr John Spencer. If the Commission is to take up the matter
with the Austrian authorities and to investigate this case it needs more information. The Commission
therefore plans to write to Mr Spencer directly to ask him for the relevant documents and information.

(2001/C 261 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: The Primarolo Group

1.

Does the Primarolo Group still exist?

Does it continue to hold meetings? If so please could the Commission give details of the future

2.
meetings scheduled, including date and venue.

3.
The Code of Conduct Group submitted its final report in November and must therefore have fulfilled
the remit granted it by the Council in January 1998. If the Code of Conduct Group is still functioning,
could the Commission explain why, given that the task assigned to the Group by the Council has now
been completed?

4. What further remit has been granted to the Code of Conduct Group to enable it to extend its
activities beyond the scope of the Council resolution of January 1998? What further tasks has the Group
been given? Which Council meeting agreed to grant the Code of Conduct Group a New mandate and
remit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Code of Conduct Group (1) was established by the Ecofin Council of 9 March 1998 (2) to assess the tax
measures that may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct for business taxation (3). Accordingly, the
Code of Conduct Group is a Council Group that was set up to operate within the framework of the
Council. Therefore any questions concerning its work, mandate or remit should be addressed to the
Council, not to the Commission.

(1)

In common parlance and notably in the press coverage the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) has often
been referred to as (cid:145)the Primarolo Group(cid:146).

(2) Ecofin Council conclusions of 9 March 1998 (OJ C 99, 1.4.1998).
(3) Ecofin Council conclusions of 1 December 1997 (OJ C 2, 6.1.1998).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 420/2001 of 1 March 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2014/2000
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ACP countries, award of contract, common wheat, export licence, export refund

L 62/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 420/2001

of 1 March 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender
issued in Regulation (EC) No 2014/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of
29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the
granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be
taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2513/98 (4), and in
particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of
to certain ACP States was opened
common wheat
pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2014/
2000 (5).

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that
the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti-
fied,
in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix

a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria
referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the cereal in question results
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
amount specified in Article 1.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

(3)

(4)

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 23 February to 1 March 2001,
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC)
No 2014/2000,
the maximum refund on exportation of
common wheat shall be EUR 11,00/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 March 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 1 March 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 313, 21.11.1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 241, 26.9.2000, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European political parties.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European party, election financing, eligibility criteria, party financing, politics

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/229

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0208/01 by
Mr Blokland during question time of March I 2001 at Parliament(cid:146)s part-session (1).

(1) Written answer of 13.3.2001.

(2001/C 235 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European political parties

What process is planned to stop money given to European political parties under the current proposals
being used in domestic political campaigns and elections?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Article 4 of the proposed regulation (1) sets out the purposes for which funding under the regulation may
be used. These do not include funding domestic campaigns or activities.

Qualifying parties are required to publish their budgets and accounts which are subject to the normal
control procedures applying to all recipients of funding from the Community budget and, as set out in
Article 5 of the proposed regulation, are subject to certification by an annual external and independent
audit.

Failure to comply with the provisions of the regulation could lead to recovery proceedings and refusal of
further funding.

(1) COM(2000) 898 final.

(2001/C 235 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: European political parties

Why was the communication on the European political parties due to be made at
Parliament(cid:146)s January plenary session postponed at the last moment?

the European

Can the Commission President list the current political parties presently represented in the European
Parliament who are eligible for such funding?

Could he give detailed and precise reasons for the exclusion of the remaining political parties from this
list?