Official Journal - EUR-Lex - European Union

I Information

European Parliament

Written Questions with answer

(1999/C 135/001) E-0251/98 by Marco Cellai to the CommissionSubject: Taxation of companies’ net assets (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

(1999/C 135/002) E-0941/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Swingeing taxation on used lorries imported into Greece (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . 2

(1999/C 135/003) E-1406/98 by Luciano Vecchi to the CommissionSubject: The co-financing of Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) projects in Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

(1999/C 135/004) E-1445/98 by Pierre Lataillade to the CommissionSubject: Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery . . . . . . . . 4

(1999/C 135/005) E-1447/98 by José Barros Moura to the CommissionSubject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

(1999/C 135/006) P-1452/98 by José Barros Moura to the CommissionSubject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1447/98 and P-1452/98 . . . . . . . . 6

(1999/C 135/007) E-1859/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the CommissionSubject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

(1999/C 135/008) E-1979/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke to the CommissionSubject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 8

(1999/C 135/009) E-2033/98 by Philippe Monfils to the CommissionSubject: Duration of the ECVAM director’s contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

(1999/C 135/010) E-2064/98 by Anne André-Léonard to the CommissionSubject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Official Journalof the European Communities

ISSN 0378-6986

C 135Volume 42

14 May 1999

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

ENPrice: EUR 39,50 (Continued overleaf)

(1999/C 135/011) E-2079/98 by Magda Aelvoet to the CommissionSubject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

(1999/C 135/012) E-2134/98 by Philippe De Coene and Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Length of the ECVAM Director’s term of office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

(1999/C 135/013) E-2452/98 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: ECVAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1979/98, E-2033/98, E-2064/98, E-2079/98,E-2134/98 and E-2452/98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(1999/C 135/014) E-1990/98 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: Measures in favour of the family and children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(1999/C 135/015) E-2017/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

(1999/C 135/016) E-2026/98 by Ian White to the CommissionSubject: Self-regulation of banking − Petition No 1227/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(1999/C 135/017) E-2056/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the CommissionSubject: Prospects for reform of the Structural Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

(1999/C 135/018) E-2097/98 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: EU resources for the trade sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(1999/C 135/019) E-2100/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the CommissionSubject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

(1999/C 135/020) P-2120/98 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation of projects inGreece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for these failings (Supplementary Answer) 16

(1999/C 135/021) E-2124/98 by Klaus Lukas to the CommissionSubject: Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

(1999/C 135/022) E-2125/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement − justice and home affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

(1999/C 135/023) E-2126/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement − external border controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(1999/C 135/024) E-2674/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Assistance to enable applicant countries to meet the Schengen criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2126/98 and E-2674/98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

(1999/C 135/025) E-2140/98 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: World Cup soccer violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

(1999/C 135/026) E-2145/98 by Laura González Álvarez and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: Planned forestry biomass incinerator power station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Palancia, Spain) . . . . . . 23

(1999/C 135/027) E-2148/98 by Ursula Schleicher and Horst Schnellhardt to the CommissionSubject: Availability of veterinary medicinal products − crisis regarding treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

(1999/C 135/028) E-2151/98 by Ingo Friedrich to the CouncilSubject: Illegal placement of foreign workers in the German construction industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

(1999/C 135/029) E-2162/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Relations with Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

(1999/C 135/030) E-2164/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96) . . . . . . . . . . . 27

(1999/C 135/031) E-2194/98 by Outi Ojala to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of animals for slaughter in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Notice No Contents (continued) Page

EN

(1999/C 135/032) E-2201/98 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Insurance of German cars in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

(1999/C 135/033) E-2209/98 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of European law by the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular through Article 60 of theStrassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

(1999/C 135/034) E-2210/98 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the CommissionSubject: Use of support funds in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

(1999/C 135/035) E-2211/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Europartenariat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

(1999/C 135/036) E-2215/98 by David Thomas to the CommissionSubject: Payments for intervention storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

(1999/C 135/037) E-2219/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso and Juan Colino Salamanca to the CommissionSubject: Olive oil and blends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(1999/C 135/038) E-2220/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso and Juan Colino Salamanca to the CommissionSubject: Number of bovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(1999/C 135/039) E-2231/98 by Magda Aelvoet to the CommissionSubject: Environmentally sound cotton production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

(1999/C 135/040) E-2246/98 by Allan Macartney to the CommissionSubject: Horse registration scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

(1999/C 135/041) P-2266/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Ban on exports of textile waste for recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

(1999/C 135/042) E-2275/98 by Glyn Ford to the CouncilSubject: Criminal financial assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

(1999/C 135/043) E-2278/98 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Waste returned to product producers and sellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

(1999/C 135/044) E-2296/98 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

(1999/C 135/045) E-2304/98 by Frédéric Striby to the CommissionSubject: Mutual recognition of driving licences by Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

(1999/C 135/046) E-2306/98 by Helwin Peter, Hiltrud Breyer and Doris Pack to the CommissionSubject: Marriage, family, parentage and divorce law in the EU Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

(1999/C 135/047) E-2311/98 by Monica Baldi to the CommissionSubject: Schengen Agreement and airport safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

(1999/C 135/048) E-2326/98 by Franz Linser to the CommissionSubject: Brenner toll 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

(1999/C 135/049) E-2327/98 by Franz Linser to the CommissionSubject: Brenner toll 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


(1999/C 135/050) E-2334/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

(1999/C 135/051) E-2352/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke to the CommissionSubject: Safety of agricultural vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

(1999/C 135/052) E-2357/98 by Graham Watson to the CouncilSubject: Presidential elections in Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

(1999/C 135/053) E-2367/98 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Foreign prisoners held in French jails under Article 752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


EN(Continued overleaf)

(1999/C 135/054) E-2368/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the FIFG and assistance for joint ventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

(1999/C 135/055) E-2381/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek to the CommissionSubject: Failure to clarify conditions applicable to cabotage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

(1999/C 135/056) E-2396/98 by Laura González Álvarez and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: Radiation leak in Algeciras (Spain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

(1999/C 135/057) E-2401/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland and road safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

(1999/C 135/058) E-2402/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the CouncilSubject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

(1999/C 135/059) E-2405/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CouncilSubject: Plans to halve Britain’s nuclear strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

(1999/C 135/060) P-2410/98 by Guido Podestà to the CommissionSubject: Trans-European transport networks: opening of Malpensa airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

(1999/C 135/061) E-2413/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Taxation on passenger vehicles imported into Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

(1999/C 135/062) E-2416/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

(1999/C 135/063) E-2595/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Disastrous effects on agriculture caused by heat wave in Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54


(1999/C 135/064) E-2421/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Parkinson’s disease and the EU’s Fifth RD Framework Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

(1999/C 135/065) E-2427/98 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Construction of high-speed rail links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

(1999/C 135/066) E-2430/98 by Frédéric Striby to the CommissionSubject: Road transport − harmonisation of conditions of competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

(1999/C 135/067) E-2432/98 by Leonie van Bladel and James Janssen van Raay to the CouncilSubject: Suspension of payments from budget items devoted to organizations caring for the elderly . . . . . . . 57

(1999/C 135/068) E-2443/98 by Heidi Hautala to the CommissionSubject: Sea turtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

(1999/C 135/069) E-2461/98 by Honório Novo to the CommissionSubject: Construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

(1999/C 135/070) E-2464/98 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Anti-dumping tariffs for steel producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

(1999/C 135/071) E-2471/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the CommissionSubject: The European Parliament and Parkinson’s disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

(1999/C 135/072) E-2485/98 by Johann Kronberger to the CommissionSubject: ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

(1999/C 135/073) E-2488/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz and Edith Müller to the CommissionSubject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63



Joint answer to Written Questions E-2488/98, E-2489/98 and E-2490/98 . . . . . . . . . . 64


EN

(1999/C 135/076) E-2504/98 by Astrid Lulling to the CommissionSubject: Single market and exclusive distribution contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

(1999/C 135/077) P-2521/98 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila to the CommissionSubject: Agenda 2000 deprives Finnish farming of its spirit of enterprise, leading to ‘virtual agriculture’ . . . . 66

(1999/C 135/078) P-2523/98 by Doeke Eisma to the CommissionSubject: Granting of subsidies to animal welfare organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

(1999/C 135/079) E-2524/98 by Niels Kofoed and Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Low producer prices for pigmeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

(1999/C 135/080) E-2526/98 by Graham Watson to the CouncilSubject: Political oppression in Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

(1999/C 135/081) E-2536/98 by André Fourçans to the CommissionSubject: Operation of European financial markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

(1999/C 135/082) E-2546/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Shipments of nuclear waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70




(1999/C 135/085) E-2565/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz to the CommissionSubject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC in the Lombardy region and the BresciaProvince in Upper Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

(1999/C 135/086) E-2566/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

(1999/C 135/087) E-2568/98 by Graham Watson to the CouncilSubject: Human rights in Tunisia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

(1999/C 135/088) E-2571/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Headage payments in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

(1999/C 135/089) E-2575/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Cohesion and Structural Funds payments to Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

(1999/C 135/090) E-2576/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Pigmeat sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

(1999/C 135/091) E-2581/98 by Philippe Monfils to the CommissionSubject: Rape and sexual abuse of children at a European Union crèche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

(1999/C 135/092) E-2609/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the CommissionSubject: Promoting quality meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

(1999/C 135/093) E-2619/98 by Sören Wibe to the CommissionSubject: Salaries of officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

(1999/C 135/094) E-2626/98 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Financial support for the projects of the ACP National Chambers of Commerce Association . . . . . . 80

(1999/C 135/095) E-2627/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Minority languages and cultures: Community funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

(1999/C 135/096) E-2629/98 by Arie Oostlander to the CommissionSubject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under the EU schoolmilk scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82



(1999/C 135/097) E-2633/98 by Otto von Habsburg to the CouncilSubject: EU-Croatia relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

(1999/C 135/098) E-2634/98 by Otto von Habsburg, Hiltrud Breyer, Charles Goerens, Klaus-Heiner Lehne,Claudia Roth, Wilmya Zimmermann and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen to the CouncilSubject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania − expert reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

(1999/C 135/099) E-2636/98 by Hiltrud Breyer, Otto von Habsburg, Charles Goerens, Klaus-Heiner Lehne,Claudia Roth, Wilmya Zimmermann and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen to the CouncilSubject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

(1999/C 135/100) E-2650/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager to the CommissionSubject: Unauthorised subsidies for nuclear energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

(1999/C 135/101) E-2654/98 by Friedhelm Frischenschlager to the CouncilSubject: European burden-sharing relating to refugees and displaced persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

(1999/C 135/102) E-2665/98 by Ilona Graenitz to the CommissionSubject: Framework directive on foodstuffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

(1999/C 135/103) E-2668/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

(1999/C 135/104) E-2669/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

(1999/C 135/105) E-2672/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Assessment of transposition of the acquis communautaire in the applicant countries . . . . . . . . . . 90

(1999/C 135/106) E-2675/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

(1999/C 135/107) E-2678/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Environmental crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

(1999/C 135/108) E-2680/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Judicial cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

(1999/C 135/109) E-2681/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Threatened flood of refugees from Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

(1999/C 135/110) P-3049/98 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CouncilSubject: Kosovo refugees and the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2681/98 and P-3049/98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

(1999/C 135/111) E-2687/98 by Ursula Schleicher to the CommissionSubject: Discharge of untreated sewage in Lisbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

(1999/C 135/112) E-2691/98 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: EU relations with Turkey and their impact on the trade in hazelnuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

(1999/C 135/113) E-2696/98 by Frédéric Striby to the CommissionSubject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

(1999/C 135/114) E-2697/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the CommissionSubject: Flight safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

(1999/C 135/115) E-2698/98 by Amedeo Amadeo to the CommissionSubject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care . . . . . . . 98



Joint answer to Written Questions E-2698/98, E-2699/98 and E-2700/98 . . . . . . . . . . 99


EN

(1999/C 135/118) E-2706/98 by Angela Billingham to the CommissionSubject: EU subsidy for school milk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

(1999/C 135/119) E-2709/98 by Françoise Grossetête to the CommissionSubject: Assessment of the risks of biocidal products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

(1999/C 135/120) E-2714/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CouncilSubject: Threat to the peace process in Angola caused by an arms build up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

(1999/C 135/121) E-2718/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CouncilSubject: Questions concerning human rights violations in the Netherlands Antilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

(1999/C 135/122) E-2722/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CouncilSubject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

(1999/C 135/123) E-2724/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of cultural monuments of Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

(1999/C 135/124) E-2726/98 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: Soap containing mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

(1999/C 135/125) E-2730/98 by Jessica Larive to the CommissionSubject: DG XIII’s failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

(1999/C 135/126) E-2732/98 by Christine Oddy to the CommissionSubject: Religious persecution in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

(1999/C 135/127) E-2734/98 by Christine Oddy to the CommissionSubject: Battery cages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

(1999/C 135/128) E-2736/98 by Christine Oddy to the CommissionSubject: Asbestos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

(1999/C 135/129) E-2738/98 by James Moorhouse to the CouncilSubject: Lebanese prisoners in Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

(1999/C 135/130) E-2741/98 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Inward investment agreements with car manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

(1999/C 135/131) P-2745/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Novel Foods Regulation (EC) 258/97 − authorisation of varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

(1999/C 135/132) E-2748/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CouncilSubject: European volunteer year for young people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

(1999/C 135/133) P-2767/98 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Cohesion Fund − sewage treatment projects in Thessaloniki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

(1999/C 135/134) E-2771/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: The ca. 3 000 Europeans detained in foreign jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

(1999/C 135/135) E-2776/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: The imprisonment of Petrus Hariyanto in Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

(1999/C 135/136) E-2780/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Political detainees in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

(1999/C 135/137) P-2785/98 by Jean-Antoine Giansily to the CommissionSubject: Presidential elections in Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

(1999/C 135/138) E-2790/98 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: European-wide leagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

(1999/C 135/139) E-2795/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CommissionSubject: Financing of the UCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

(1999/C 135/140) E-2799/98 by Leonie van Bladel to the CommissionSubject: Refugees in Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117



(1999/C 135/141) E-2800/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Unsuitable methods used by the British Museum to conserve the Elgin Marbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

(1999/C 135/142) E-2804/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Disastrous fires in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

(1999/C 135/143) E-2807/98 by Leo Tindemans to the CommissionSubject: Phare policy: protection of the interests of European experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

(1999/C 135/144) E-2809/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CouncilSubject: Gender mainstreaming at meetings of the Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

(1999/C 135/145) E-2811/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Salary of the President of the ECB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

(1999/C 135/146) E-2815/98 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Floods in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

(1999/C 135/147) E-2816/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza to the CommissionSubject: Sun screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

(1999/C 135/148) E-2821/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CommissionSubject: Repayment by the Italian Government of the ‘Europe Tax’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

(1999/C 135/149) E-2822/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CouncilSubject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

(1999/C 135/150) E-2828/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Deposits of caesium-137 exceeding 40 Kbq/m2 in areas of Greece following the Chernobyl disaster . . 125

(1999/C 135/151) E-2829/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: The millennium bug and its impact in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

(1999/C 135/152) E-2836/98 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: East Timor independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

(1999/C 135/153) E-2837/98 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: Asylum seekers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

(1999/C 135/154) E-2842/98 by Hedy d’Ancona to the CouncilSubject: Trial against representatives of the Greek Rainbow Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

(1999/C 135/155) E-2850/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Reappraisal of energy-based medical techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

(1999/C 135/156) P-2861/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CouncilSubject: Arrangements envisaged by the Council for the project shared amongst European cities of culture in 2000 129

(1999/C 135/157) E-2866/98 by Clive Needle to the CouncilSubject: Code of conduct on arms control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

(1999/C 135/158) E-2867/98 by Clive Needle to the CommissionSubject: Code of conduct on arms control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

(1999/C 135/159) E-2870/98 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

(1999/C 135/160) E-2879/98 by Panayotis Lambrias to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

(1999/C 135/161) E-2886/98 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Trade with Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

(1999/C 135/162) E-2888/98 by Carlos Robles Piquer to the CommissionSubject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

(1999/C 135/163) E-2889/98 by Bernard Lehideux to the CommissionSubject: Possible resumption of EU accession negotiations with Malta following the change of government there 134


EN

(1999/C 135/164) E-2891/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violation in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

(1999/C 135/165) E-2898/98 by Ursula Schleicher to the CommissionSubject: Access to universities in Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

(1999/C 135/166) E-2905/98 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann to the CommissionSubject: Creation of an international therapeutic solidarity fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

(1999/C 135/167) E-2916/98 by Jean Baggioni to the CommissionSubject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

(1999/C 135/168) E-2925/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Failure by Greece to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Natura 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

(1999/C 135/169) E-2929/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza to the CommissionSubject: European Tourism Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

(1999/C 135/170) E-2930/98 by Heidi Hautala to the CommissionSubject: Secondary occupations of EU officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

(1999/C 135/171) P-2933/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Secondary law in the field of immigration and asylum policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

(1999/C 135/172) P-2934/98 by José Pomés Ruiz to the CouncilSubject: The crisis in Albania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

(1999/C 135/173) E-2936/98 by David Martin to the CommissionSubject: Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

(1999/C 135/174) E-2945/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CouncilSubject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs . . . . . . . . . 142

(1999/C 135/175) E-2947/98 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: The privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

(1999/C 135/176) E-2950/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of academic qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

(1999/C 135/177) E-2952/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Notification requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

(1999/C 135/178) E-2959/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

(1999/C 135/179) E-2969/98 by Cristiana Muscardini and Gianfranco Fini to the CommissionSubject: Europol and the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

(1999/C 135/180) P-2973/98 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Role of the media in the increased sexual exploitation of women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

(1999/C 135/181) P-2975/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CommissionSubject: Italian proposal to promote job creation in the south with exemptions from contributions . . . . . . . . 148

(1999/C 135/182) E-2980/98 by David Martin to the CommissionSubject: The purchase of cars in the European single market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

(1999/C 135/183) E-2983/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

(1999/C 135/184) E-2984/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149


(1999/C 135/185) E-2994/98 by Roberto Mezzaroma to the CouncilSubject: Reform of the law on representation in the armed forces in Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150



(1999/C 135/186) E-2998/98 by Renate Heinisch to the CommissionSubject: Information on the level of EU aid paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in1997 (Supplementary Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

(1999/C 135/187) P-3014/98 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: Echelon system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

(1999/C 135/188) P-3017/98 by Luigi Florio to the CouncilSubject: Israel’s request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN . . . . . . . . . . . 151

(1999/C 135/189) E-3020/98 by José Barros Moura to the CommissionSubject: Meda-Democracy Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

(1999/C 135/190) E-3025/98 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: Gas and fire liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

(1999/C 135/191) E-3029/98 by Miguel Arias Cañete to the CommissionSubject: Obstacles to the free movement of products containing precious metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

(1999/C 135/192) E-3035/98 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Imports of flowers from Latin American countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

(1999/C 135/193) P-3036/98 by María Izquierdo Rojo to the CommissionSubject: Joint EU-Algeria education programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

(1999/C 135/194) E-3037/98 by John Iversen to the CommissionSubject: Television without frontiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

(1999/C 135/195) E-3038/98 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Spread of resistant MDR-TB in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

(1999/C 135/196) E-3042/98 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Developments with regard to the European Energy Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

(1999/C 135/197) E-3044/98 by José Apolinário to the CommissionSubject: EU-funds for the trade sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

(1999/C 135/198) P-3050/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Dutch study of phthalates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

(1999/C 135/199) E-3054/98 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Manchester United . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

(1999/C 135/200) E-3056/98 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Breakaway super soccer league . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

(1999/C 135/201) E-3065/98 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

(1999/C 135/202) E-3067/98 by Werner Langen to the CouncilSubject: Negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chile . 163

(1999/C 135/203) E-3074/98 by José Pomés Ruiz to the CommissionSubject: Corruption in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

(1999/C 135/204) E-3077/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CouncilSubject: Fines for road traffic offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

(1999/C 135/205) E-3078/98 by Gerhard Hager to the CommissionSubject: Fines for road traffic offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

(1999/C 135/206) E-3088/98 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Danube development project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

(1999/C 135/207) E-3098/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CouncilSubject: Professional relations among professional soccer players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167


EN

(1999/C 135/208) E-3099/98 by Umberto Bossi to the CommissionSubject: Professional relations among professional soccer players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

(1999/C 135/209) E-3110/98 by Viviane Reding to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against Luxembourg firms in the crafts trades sector by virtue of the German law on theposting of workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

(1999/C 135/210) E-3118/98 by Winifred Ewing to the CommissionSubject: Vessel modernisation and rebuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

(1999/C 135/211) E-3123/98 by Gianni Tamino to the CommissionSubject: Definition of rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

(1999/C 135/212) E-3137/98 by Ernesto Caccavale to the CommissionSubject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

(1999/C 135/213) E-3141/98 by Ana Miranda de Lage and Jesús Cabezón Alonso to the CommissionSubject: Situation in Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

(1999/C 135/214) P-3147/98 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Vladivostok psychiatric hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

(1999/C 135/215) E-3148/98 by Rainer Wieland to the CouncilSubject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products . . . . 173

(1999/C 135/216) E-3150/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energy sources and wind farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

(1999/C 135/217) E-3155/98 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the CouncilSubject: Natural gas consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

(1999/C 135/218) E-3167/98 by Anita Pollack to the CommissionSubject: Safety checks on amusement park attractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

(1999/C 135/219) E-3179/98 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Social clauses for PHARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

(1999/C 135/220) E-3190/98 by Arthur Newens to the CommissionSubject: Trade between the EU and certain Asian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

(1999/C 135/221) P-3204/98 by Anita Pollack to the CommissionSubject: Incitement to murder in Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

(1999/C 135/222) P-3210/98 by Werner Langen to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the abolition of duty-free arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

(1999/C 135/223) E-3214/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Operating licence for quarry in area protected by Natura 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

(1999/C 135/224) E-3215/98 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Data on fires in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

(1999/C 135/225) E-3218/98 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of Irish third-level students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

(1999/C 135/226) E-3225/98 by Roberto Mezzaroma to the CommissionSubject: Russian submarines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

(1999/C 135/227) E-3229/98 by Edith Müller to the CommissionSubject: Competitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

(1999/C 135/228) E-3244/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Action to preserve the Monastery of St Andrew in occupied Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

(1999/C 135/229) E-3254/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

(1999/C 135/230) E-3278/98 by Eva Kjer Hansen to the CommissionSubject: Application of Article 171(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182



(1999/C 135/231) P-3281/98 by José Barros Moura to the CommissionSubject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration − death penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

(1999/C 135/232) E-3299/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis to the CommissionSubject: Construction of a golf course in wetlands in Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

(1999/C 135/233) E-3328/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor to the CommissionSubject: European guarantee fund for pensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

(1999/C 135/234) E-3396/98 by Marco Cellai to the CommissionSubject: Commission competition held on 14 September 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

(1999/C 135/235) E-3408/98 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Retirement provisions for pilots and flight attendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

(1999/C 135/236) E-3425/98 by Dietrich Elchlepp to the CommissionSubject: Breakdown of EU subsidies for Baden-Württemberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

(1999/C 135/237) E-3428/98 by Hugh McMahon to the CommissionSubject: Budget Item A-3029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

(1999/C 135/238) E-3537/98 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Budget line 3029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

(1999/C 135/239) E-3555/98 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: St. Teresa di Lerici sailing school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188


EN

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(1999/C 135/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Taxation of companies’ net assets

In compliance with the principle that capital contributions or the raising of capital may not be taxed morethan once in the European Community so as not to create barriers to the free movement of capital, Article 1of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 requires harmonization of taxation of contributions of capitalto capital companies. The directive stipulates that Member States may not apply taxes on the raising ofcapital by such companies apart from capital duty, the rate of which, following the amendment introducedby Article 1 of Directive 73/80/EEC (2) of 18 April 1973, may not exceed 1% (Article 10 of Directive69/335/EEC).

Under Italian regulations, capital duty (the only tax allowed by the Community legislation referred toabove) is represented by the registration tax on capital contributions other than contributions of propertyrights: this tax is charged at the rate of 1%. The tax on the net assets of companies thus comes on top ofthis registration tax and has been applied at the rate of an additional 0,75% to the equity capital at thefinancial year end, year after year despite the fact that it is neither exceptional or temporary in nature.

The tax thus has an equivalent effect equivalent to that of the ordinary capital duty and as such is in breachof the provisions of Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969.

The approach consistently adopted under national and Community case law on non-compliance of thiskind would require the regulations on the tax on the net assets of companies to be repealed immediatelyand with retroactive effect, without any need for intervention by the legislator. On these grounds, manyItalian companies have applied to the Ministry of Finance for the refund of amounts wrongly paid inrespect of the tax on net assets of companies together with accrued interest.

Does the Commission not consider that it should remind the Italian Government of its duty to amend therelevant legislation and introduce new provisions without delay?

(1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.(2) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 13.

14.5.1999 EN C 135/1Official Journal of the European Communities

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

The question of the compatibility of the Italian tax on business assets with amended Directive 69/335/EECof 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital was the subject of a question for apreliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice by an Italian court.

In its decision of 27 October 1998 (Case C-4/97 Manifattura italiana Nonwoven SpA), the Court of Justiceruled that the tax on net business assets was neither a capital duty nor a tax possessing the characteristics ofsuch a duty and that, consequently, the Directive did not prohibit the collection of the tax from corporateenterprises.

Finally, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that this tax has nowbeen abolished.


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Swingeing taxation on used lorries imported into Greece

The Greek authorities intend to impose swingeing taxes on used lorries imported into Greece, even recentmodels fitted with EURO II-type engines. The new high level of taxation which is proposed (‘specialregistration tax’) will mean an excessive increase in the cost of used vehicles and in particular of lorriesover 3,5 tonnes in weight.

The Greek Government calculates the value of imported vehicles taking into account not the importinvoice, but the retail sale value of a new lorry, subject to an annual depreciation which reaches 52% aftersix years.

Will the Commission give its official views on this new swingeing taxation for used lorries and on the factthat the Greek authorities seem unwilling to accept import invoices for lorries (which are clearly officialCommunity tax documents) but intend to take the retail sales price of new lorries as a basis for theircalculations?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

While not having been officially informed, the Commission is aware of the substance of the plannedtaxation of lorries (both new and used) in Greece. Under the plan, the special tax will be raised from 5%(Law No 2093/1992, Greek Official Gazette A/181 of 25 November 1992, as currently applicable) to 7%for lorries with a gross weight of more than 3,5 tonnes, from 10% to 13% for open lorries with a grossweight of up to 3,5 tonnes and from 8/15/20/25/30% to 10/18/24/31/37% respectively on closed lorrieswith a gross weight of up to 3,5 tonnes.

In the case of fully finished vehicles released onto the Greek market, the tax will apply to both new andused lorries. However, the actual situation on the Greek market is that most lorries are released onto themarket as unbodied lorries (including chassis, engine and driver’s cab), to which is later added the properbody for a fully finished vehicle. New lorry bodies are not taxed whereas used ones are, and no change isenvisaged in this respect in the draft legislation. This would lead to tax discrimination between new andused bodies. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, if the examination it iscurrently conducting confirmed the existence of tax discrimination detrimental to lorry bodies importedfrom other Member States, it would be prepared to utilise all the means available to it under the Treaty toremedy the situation.

C 135/2 EN 14.5.1999Official Journal of the European Communities

As regards the tax base for the planned tax, it is true that, according to the draft legislation, it would becalculated in the case of used lorries on the basis of the retail selling price of the new vehicle, with areduction fixed by reference to the year of construction and ranging from 20% (one- to two-year-oldvehicles) to a maximum of 65% (vehicles more than eight years old). In its judgments of 9 March 1995 (1)and 23 October 1997, (2) the Court of Justice held that it is incompatible with Article 95 of the Treaty for aMember State to levy on second-hand cars from other Member States a tax which, calculated withouttaking the vehicle’s actual depreciation into account, exceeds the residual tax incorporated in the value ofsimilar second-hand motor vehicles already registered in the national territory, which, having been taxedat the time of such registration, are not taxed when sold second-hand. Consequently, it should be examinedto what extent the table of annual rates of depreciation proposed in the draft Greek legislation correspondsto the actual depreciation observed on the market; it would be contrary to the case law of the Court only ifit contained rates of depreciation lower than market depreciation.

As regards the planned tax incentives for anti-pollution vehicles, currently applied to lorries in Greece inthe form of a 30% increase in the aforementioned taxes for non-anti-pollution cars, the Court ruled in theabove case Commission v Hellenic Republic that national legislation which excludes anti-pollutiontechnology cars from the benefit of the reduced rates of special consumer tax applicable to that type ofvehicle is contrary to Article 95.

Since this judgment was given as part of proceedings for failure to comply with an obligation, Greece wasrequired under Article 171(1) of the EC Treaty to comply with it within a reasonable period. Since this hasnot happened, the Commission has decided to initiate the procedure under Article 171(2), which allows theCourt, in the manner indicated by the Commission, to impose pecuniary penalties on the Member State inquestion.

(1) Case C-345/93 Fazenda Publica and Ministerio Publico v. Américo João Nunes Tadeu [1995] ECRI-479.(2) Case C-375/95 Commission v. Hellenic Republic [1997] ECR I-5981.


by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: The co-financing of Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) projects in Cuba

Over recent months there has been a substantial freeze in the co-financing of projects run by EuropeanNGOs working in Cuba.

This situation is causing serious difficulties for non-governmental cooperation initiatives in Cuba, and ispreventing NGOs from pursuing development actions which may assist social, economic and politicalchange in Cuba.

Does the Commission intend to resume the co-financing of NGO projects in Cuba and what is its attitudetowards non-governmental cooperation in Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Community cofinancing of operations with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been suspendedfor the following reasons:

In its judgment of 12 May 1998 in case C 106/96, the Court of Justice annulled a Commission Decisionallocating grants without a specific legal basis. One of the implications of this judgment is that anyexpenditure relating to a Community operation must not only be entered in the budget (the budgetaryauthority) but must also be preceded by the adoption of secondary legislation authorising the expenditure(the responsibility of the legislative authority).


No secondary legislation yet exists to cover appropriations entered in the general budget of the EuropeanUnion for 1998 under heading B7-6000 ‘Community contribution towards schemes concerning develop-ing countries carried out by non-governmental organisations’.

On 11 July 1995, the Commission sent the Council and Parliament a proposal for a Regulation oncofinancing operations with European development NGOs in fields of interest to the developing countries.The Regulation is expected to be adopted shortly (by the end of July).

As long as the Regulation has not been adopted, there is an obligation to adhere to the Court of Justiceruling by suspending all new cofinancing requested by NGOs under budget heading B7-6000.

As to the cofinancing of projects submitted by European NGOs working in Cuba, the Commission wouldinform the Honourable Member that, apart from the problem outlined above, there is no freeze on suchprojects and it intends to continue to support the operations concerned once the Regulation on cofinancinghas been adopted.

In addition to granting humanitarian aid to the people of Cuba, the Commission envisages substantialproject cofinancing with European NGOs working in Cuba under the 1998 budget. Pending a regulation,and given that NGOs must first submit projects for Commission appraisal, it is not yet possible to specifyhow much cofinancing of this type will be available in 1998.


by Pierre Lataillade (UPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery

The Commission has prepared an updated version of the ‘Guide to the Directive on machinery’ (Directive89/392/EEC (1), amended in 1991 and 1993) that it published in 1993. The Guide has been immenselyuseful to the manufacturers and users of machinery, and particularly to small firms. The updated versionof the Guide, about which there is very broad agreement within industry and in most of the Member States,has been eagerly awaited for more than a year.

1. What are the reasons for this delay?

2. Does the Commission intend to publish it?

3. When?

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission is pleased to have the Honourable Member’s support in its activities to ensure thetransparency of Community legislation and is willing to support the publication of a guide in the nearfuture.

In 1993, a brochure seemed to be the most effective way of meeting firms’ needs. The technologicalsituation has changed in the meantime. The draft guide is three times as voluminous and needs to beupdated frequently. As it is cheaper, faster and more flexible to send the guide electronically, theCommission plans to provide access to it via the information pages it publishes on the Internet, (1) it beingunderstood that its sole purpose is to facilitate the implementation of Council Directive 89/392/EEC of14 June 1989 on the approximation of the legislation of the Member States on machinery and that is does


not provide a binding legal interpretation. As far as a paper publication is concerned, the subsidy willdepend on the budgetary means available since the Commission has to give priority to the publication ofits own documents.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dgiii/directs/dg3/index.htm.


by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain

In reply to my Question E-0457/98 (1), Mrs Wulf-Mathies stated that

1. As far as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is concerned, there is no project inSpain which in terms of its size and nature is equivalent or comparable to the Alqueva project.Similarly, no project of this scale and type has been financed under the Cohesion Fund.

2. The conditions which were applied to the co-financing of the Alqueva project derived from itsexceptional scale (more than ECU 300 million of Community funds) which raised special problems interms of environmental protection, water supplies, economic development and coordination ofmonitoring measures.

However, it is important to look at the actual facts and figures. In the case of the Alqueva project, theERDF will contribute, in 1997 prices, only ECU 96,6 million. The remainder of the funds will be coveredby the Cohesion Fund, the ESF and the EAGGF Guidance Section. To compare with corresponding valuesin Spain, where funding is also provided by the Cohesion Fund for hydrographic basins, we need to referto the ERDF. The Regional Development Fund is to provide funding for the Spanish hydrological planover the same period (Community Support Framework) amounting to ESC 260 billion, i.e. thirteen timesmore than the amount available to the Alqueva project.

As the Commission must be aware, the fact that a programme or project (such as the Spanish hydrologicalplan which, according to all the evidence, includes a large number of dams and ‘transfusion points’ fundedby the ERDF and situated in international rivers, such as the Guadiana) is divided up does not mean that itshould not be treated as a global entity, especially if one takes account of the single nature of thecontributions to the same project.

How can the Commission therefore assert that no Spanish project of the same scale as the Alqueva projecthas been funded? And how can it be impartial when it maintains that only the Alqueva project requiredspecial monitoring conditions to be laid down for co-funding?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 7.

(1999/C 135/006) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1452/98


(7 May 1998)

Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain

1. Can the Commission supply a comparative table concerning ERDF spending up to the end of 1997under the CSF for Spain on measure 6,1 (hydrological plan) as contrasted with expenditure on majorhydraulic projects in Portugal?

2. Can the Commission also draw up a comparative table of the conditions attached by the ERDF tothese payments in the case of each of the two Member States?


Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1447/98 and P-1452/98

given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

As the Honourable Member will have noted in the documentation the Commission sent him when replyingto his Written Question P-4150/97 (1), it was decided to draw up national hydrological plans (NHPs) inSpain and Portugal for similar reasons and with similar objectives. The project, which was begun almosttwo years ago in Spain, was significantly amended by the new Government when it took office. So,although there is a Spanish NHP, it is still only a draft, even if a very advanced draft. For it to have legalvalidity, the Spanish Parliament must examine and possibly amend the plan during the present legislature.

This plan is not therefore public and currently includes no financing plan. It does, however, set outmaximum overall estimates for the work the Spanish authorities plan to continue or initiate in theGuadiana Basin over the next ten and over the next twenty years. The European Regional DevelopmentFund (ERDF) cannot intervene in a national plan that is not yet official and which lacks legal validity. Onthe other hand, in addition to national and local commitments, the plan expressly provides for anapplication for Community part-financing at the appropriate time, although it is not yet clear from whichCommunity source or sources (ERDF or Cohesion Fund). The Commission will ensure, when Communitypart-financing is allocated, that the rules on eligibility and cumulation are fully respected.

Furthermore, the bilateral agreement between Spain and Portugal confirming the international nature ofthe Guadiana River provides for management of the basin on the basis of consensus. It is within thisparticularly suitable framework that the Honourable Member should seek data for comparing the projectsof the two Member States.

Although the ‘Specific Programme for the Integrated Development of the Alqueva Area’ (Pediza) and thevarious works carried out in the Spanish part of the Basin are difficult to compare owing to their differingnatures, the only data which can be given at present concern Community part-financing, from all sources,for, on the Portuguese side, the Alqueva project and work in the Alentejo, and, on the Spanish side, workin the Guadiana Basin under Heading 6.1.1 of the operational programmes (OP) for the Objective 1 areasof Extremadura and Andalusia.

As regards the conditions for part-financing and monitoring, the Commission reaffirms that the conditionsapplied to the above Spanish operational programmes are those uniformly applied, in accordance with therules, to all ERDF operations in all Member States, and consequently in Portugal.

The conditions applied to part-financing of the Pediza programme are because of the importance andscope of this major project, for which a number of special factors relating to its size, nature and wide-ranging impact had to be taken into account. After discussion in the partnership which accompanies theimplementation of the Structural Funds, those conditions were accepted by the Portuguese authorities.Any additional conditions attached to the implementation and payment of a project are linked to itsspecific characteristics and impact.

Projects and programmes part-financed by the Structural and Cohesion Funds must comply with allCommunity policies. Furthermore, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it is the responsibility of theMember States to certify, both before work begins and when expenditure claims are submitted, that therelevant Community rules, and in particular the rules on environmental impact, have been respected.

The Commission has so far received no complaints regarding the work undertaken in the Spanish part ofthe Guadiana Basin. It has therefore no reason to doubt the compliance of the Spanish authorities withCommunity rules and sees no justification for taking preventive measures, as this would amount tounfounded suspicion.


The list of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund in Spain and Portugal over the last three years was sentto the Honourable Member in reply to his Written Question P-4150/97. The list of projects financed by theERDF in the Guadiana Basin in Spain and Portugal is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and tothe Parliament Secretary.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998.


by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants

In its answer to my question E-663/98 (1) on the reliability of Euratom safeguards, the Commission statedthat ‘as long as resources are available, the Commission will continue to perform continual inspections atthe Dounreay site’. It goes on to say that it ‘is not aware either of any shortcomings in its safeguardingoperations or of any dumping of safeguarded materials at the Dounreay site’. However, the April bulletinof the European Atomic Forum, concerning the contents of the waste shaft I mentioned, writes that, as thetype of radioactive waste is not precisely known, a study will first be carried out of the surroundinghydrogeology and the best disposition of boreholes and instruments’.

1. Are the resources available to the Euratom authority adequate to continue to conduct all inspectionsrequired in European nuclear plant at regular intervals in future?

2. What is the annual cost of such inspections, and how much would be needed, in Euratom’s view, tocontinue to perform all necessary inspections?

3. Can the Commission categorically rule out the presence in the Dounreay nuclear waste shaft ofsubstances which should in fact be subject to its inspection?

4. In this connection, how does the Commission respond to the statement by the nuclear industry thatthe contents of the shaft are unknown?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

1. In a time of limited public budgets the Commission will continue its endeavours to allocate thefinancial and human resources necessary to meet the safeguards obligations in the nuclear installations ofthe Community. The attention which the Parliament pays to this issue is highly appreciated and supportcontinues to be welcome.

2. In 1997, the operational expenses of the Euratom Safeguards Directorate (excluding personnel) wereECU 15,8 million and are ECU 16,0 million for 1998. The current estimated budget requirements for thefollowing four years according to the indicative financial programming established by the Commissionare as follows: 1999 ECU 16,4 million; 2000 ECU 16,8 million; 2001 ECU 17,1 million;2002 ECU 17,4 million.

3. Upon accession of the United Kingdom, the routine operation of the Dounreay waste disposal shaftmentioned by the Honourable Member was already terminated. Thus, the Commission could not verify theinformation on the nuclear inventory received from the operator.

4. Regarding the nuclear material contents of that shaft, the Commission has received somedocumentation which is being evaluated.



by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

I have recently heard that the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives has beenappointed for a period of only two years, whereas his term of office should normally be five years, as wasrecommended by the ECVAM’s advisory committee.

What is the Commission’s opinion of this, and what academic credibility does it think a director can havewho only holds his post for two years?


by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Duration of the ECVAM director’s contract

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods established by the EU plays an importantrole in carrying out long-term validation studies.

It would appear that the most recent contract for the post of director is not for the standard period of fiveyears but is for two years only.

Clearly, if managerial staff are replaced too frequently the continuity of work and the Centre’s scientificcredibility are likely to be undermined.

Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the above, it would be advisable to confirm theappointment of the Centre’s director for a period of 5 years?


by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods)

The ECVAM Director’s term of office, which is normally five years, has been renewed only for a periodof two years.

Is such a decision on the part of certain authorities not likely to pose a threat to the future of thisinstitution?

Moreover, a two-year term of office is apparently inadequate for completing long-term validation studies.As a result the Centre will have limited credibility in scientific circles.

At present the ECVAM comprises prominent experts in the field of validation of alternative methods. Itwould be regrettable to deprive the Centre of their experience and thus to jeopardize its very existence.

Will the Commission inform us of the latest developments in this respect?



by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

We have heard that there are problems regarding the continuity of the work of the European Centre for theValidation of Alternatives, which develops alternatives to tests on animals. We are convinced that theECVAM carries out valuable work.

1. Is it true that the Director of the ECVAM, Mr Balls, was appointed for only two years rather than thecustomary five?

2. Is this situation jeopardizing the survival and efficient operation of the Centre?

3. Does the Commission agree that the ECVAM has done important work and must be able to continueit?


by Philippe De Coene (PSE) and Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Length of the ECVAM Director’s term of office

The term of office of the Director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods(ECVAM) has recently been renewed. The usual term is five years, but this time an extension of only twoyears has been granted.

Limiting the term of office in this way will seriously jeopardize any research that is launched during theperiod concerned. Many research projects can obviously not be completed in such a time, and two years isalso too short to draw any well-founded long-term conclusions.

Scientific centres will not attach much credibility to the ECVAM when they realize that the Director hasbarely two years to carry out his research.

Does the Commission not agree that it makes scientific sense to grant a full term of five years? What arethe reasons for choosing a shorter term?


by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: ECVAM

The appointment of Mr Balls, the director of ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation ofAlternative Methods), a body set up by the EU, has been extended by two years.

Since the director is normally appointed for a period of five years, the associations working for theprotection of laboratory animals are concerned for the future of the institution.

As ECVAM is one of the rare organisations bringing together experts in the validation of alternativemethods, it would be regrettable if its existence were to be placed in jeopardy.

Can the Commission tell me what the future prospects of ECVAM are?


Joint answerto Written Questions E-1979/98, E-2033/98, E-2064/98,

E-2079/98, E-2134/98 and E-2452/98given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The extension of the contract of the head of the Centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM)at the Joint research centre of Ispra, for a two-year period has been decided on the basis of technical andmanagerial considerations. In the meantime, the Commission will do its best to maintain its commitmentsand priorities to ECVAM.

The Commission remains fully committed to the validation of alternative methods as provided underDirective 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1).Furthermore it is continuing to pursue its efforts to end animal tests in compliance with the requirementsof Directive 76/768/EC (2) as last modified by Directive 93/35/EC (3) relating to cosmetic products at theearliest possible opportunity.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.(3) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993.


by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Measures in favour of the family and children

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Commission in Case C-106/96 (12 May1998), what action is the Commission taking, or does it propose to take, to ensure the implementation ofthe projects to be funded from Item B3-4108: Measures in favour of the family and children?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

The Commission has decided to release part of the appropriations for item B3-4108 − Measures in favourof the family and children − for 1998. Commitments totalling ECU 810 000 have been entered into to date.Other projects totalling ECU 2,19 million could still be financed in the context of the production of areport on population and of the execution of projects accepted by the Commission before 10 June 1998, forwhich certain expectations have been created.

The possibility of financing these measures in future will be reviewed in the context of the interinstitu-tional agreement on the legal bases and amendments introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty.


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Genetic engineering in organic foodstuffs

In the USA there has been a debate in recent months on a draft law from the USDA laying down rulesgoverning the manufacture of organically farmed foodstuffs (USDA National Organic Program ProposalRule). The USDA proposal allowed the use of genetic engineering in products derived from organicfarming. It breached EU standards on 27 counts and the danger existed through the WTO, that genetically


manipulated foodstuffs could end up on the European market having been declared as organic foods andcould mislead consumers. In the meantime, this proposal has been withdrawn. It is nevertheless anexample of how easily European standards can be undermined in the context of international trade.

1. Did the EU try in negotiations with the USA to modify this USDA proposal? If so, how?

2. Is a mutual recognition agreement between the USA and the EU planned for foodstuffs?

3. If so, on what standards is it to be based? Will the EU maintain its existing standards?

4. What value will be attached to environmental and consumer interests in the negotiations on the NewTransatlantic Marketplace and/or the New Transatlantic Partnership (NTM and/or NTP)?

5. To what extent are foodstuffs to be included in the NTM and/or NTP?

6. What kind of agreements are envisaged for foodstuffs in the NTM and/or NTP?

7. What sanctions are contemplated?

8. Is the issue of genetically manipulated foodstuffs included?

9. What timescale does the Commission envisage for an NTM and/or NTP for foodstuffs?

Supplementary answergiven by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Further to its answer of 26 August 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the followingadditional information.

1. As indicated in its answer to oral question H-433/98 by Mrs Jackson during question time atParliament’s May 1998 part-session (2) and to Written Question P-879/98 by Mr Hallam (3) the Com-mission studied in detail the draft regulations on organic farming proposed by the United States. TheCommission notified its comments to the World trade organisation (WTO) in the framework of thetechnical barriers to trade (TBT) arrangement, and submitted comments to the United States department ofagriculture bilaterally. The Commission did not however enter into negotiations with the Americanauthorities on the issue.

The Commission is aware that the United States has withdrawn the possibility of using geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) from its proposals on organic foodstuffs. Clearly, this results from theconsiderable opposition to this possibility expressed by interests both inside as well as outside the UnitedStates.

2. to 9. At the Community-United States summit on 18 May 1998 the parties agreed to reinforce theirco-operation and joint leadership in international economic relations and fora as set out in the newtransatlantic agenda (NTA), signed in 1995. This new initiative is called the transatlantic economicpartnership (TEP).

This partnership will encompass multilateral and bilateral elements. One of the areas specificallyidentified for bilateral action is agriculture where the objective is to strengthen regulatory co-operationin the fields of food safety, plant health and animal health, including biotechnology (covering GMOs). Theimportance of continuing to improve the respective regulatory processes and of improving scientific co-operation has been reflected in the TEP. The Commission has recently approved a draft action plan for theTEP for further discussion with the United States, and in the Council.


On biotechnology the aim of the action plan is to strengthen the existing bilateral dialogue in order toenhance information exchange, improve scientific and regulatory co-operation, and to promote greatertransparency and information to consumers. Other measures envisaged under the draft TEP action planinclude reviewing the possibility of interconnection between the United States and Community foodsafety rapid alert systems, the appointment of specified food safety contact points in the United States andin the Community as part of an early warning system, and an exchange of information on risk assessmentmethodology.

The TEP declaration of the London Community-United States summit explicitly recognised the need tomaintain high standards of safety and protection for health, consumers and the environment throughoutthe TEP process.

The Commmunity and United States continue to recognise the importance of involving a broad spectrumof parties in the NTA process through people-to-people dialogues. The transatlantic consumer dialoguewas launched in September 1998 and preparations are in hand for the official launch of a paralleltransatlantic environmental dialogue later this autumn. The Commission intends that both the environ-ment and consumer dialogues should be involved in all stages of the TEP, and has proposed this in itsrecent draft action plan.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 129.(2) Debates of the Parliament (May 1998).(3) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 51.


by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Self-regulation of banking − Petition No 1227/95

The Commission’s response to the above petition mentioned ‘A hearing ... held in Brussels on6 November’. Would the Commission be able to provide a written report of that hearing, giving itsfindings and conclusions, and is the Commission now in a position to advise whether it will be ‘proposingmeasures in certain areas in the near future or medium term’ and to advise what such measures might be?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The findings and conclusions of the hearing to which the Honourable Member refers are presented in theCommission’s communication Financial services: Enhancing consumer confidence, of 26 June 1997 (1).

That communication sets out the results of a consultation process which the Commission launched in May1996 with its Green Paper Financial Services: Meeting consumers’ expectations (2), and the observationsput forward at the hearing of interested parties − financial services industry, consumer organisations andMember States − that took place on 6 November 1996.

In the communication the Commission argues that action has already been taken to tackle some of theproblems identified, for example regarding cross-border credit transfers (3). But in other cases it considersthat new initiatives, legislative or voluntary, will be needed in order to give full effect to the single marketand to meet consumers’ expectations.


The Commission has since adopted a good many of the measures foreshadowed in the communication.Examples are the proposal for a directive on insurance for motorists travelling abroad, which theCommission put forward in July 1997, and the recommendation of July 1997 concerning transactions byelectronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder (4). In July1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on electronic money aimed at establishing alegislative framework for business of this kind.

Following on from the 1997 communication the Commission has also launched a voluntary initiative, adialogue intended to enable the parties concerned to reach voluntary agreements on consumer informationand consumer access to appeal machinery. In the course of 1997 and 1998 a particular subject ofdiscussion was consumer information in the mortgage credit sector. A voluntary agreement on this pointmay be reached before the end of the year.

The Commission is currently examining other initiatives. These include the forthcoming directive onconsumer credit and measures in respect of intermediaries.

Lastly, the Commission is drawing up a proposal for a directive on distance selling of financial services.The proposal would seek to improve the operation of the single market in this area, and to provideeffective protection for consumers; it will be adopted in the next few months.

(1) COM(97) 309final.(2) COM(96) 209final.(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.(4) COM(97) 353final.


by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Prospects for reform of the Structural Funds

With reference to the above topic, could the Commission provide the following information:

1. Are the planned reforms intended to bring greater simplification and decentralization? If so, in whatway?

2. Is the Commission still intending to continue applying the Cohesion Fund beyond 1999 withoutmaking any changes to the existing procedure?

3. Are there any plans of the Structural Funds to be used to finance the future European SpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP)?

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

(11 September 1998)

Simplification and decentralisation in each area of implementation and at each stage are among theprincipal aims of the reformed system for implementation of the Structural Funds proposed by theCommission, which the clarification of the responsibilities of all the partners involved through a definitionof their roles and responsibilities is intended to simplify. Their respective responsibilities for program-ming, monitoring, evaluation and checking will in future be clearly established, which will also facilitaterelations between the Commission, the Member States, the regions and economic operators. The MemberStates will have general responsibility for implementing the Funds and detailed programming will infuture be decentralised, hence implementation, financial management, monitoring and evaluation of thispart of programming will, in the first place, be their responsibility. Financial management is an area whichhas been greatly simplified. While the current system of Community commitments and payments is basedon a series of instalments, several advance payments and thresholds triggering payments as work is carried


out, the proposed system will involve only one annual automatic commitment, the payment of a singleadvance when the programme is adopted, the refund of the expenditure certified by the Member State andpayment of the balance. Another important field for operators, the eligibility of expenditure, has also beensimplified. Whereas the current rules make no provision for this aspect and experience has shown the needfor rules (see the 22 datasheets on eligibility adopted by the Commission in March 1997 under SEM 2000),the principle is that the relevant national rules apply, except if a need appears at the Community level (e.g.harmonisation, legal vacuum), in which case the Commission will adopt common rules.

The Commission is proposing that Member States should be eligible for the Cohesion Fund if their percapita gross national product (GNP) is less than 90% of the Community average, whether or not they takepart in the third phase of economic and monetary union.

Article 9(4) of the proposal for a Regulation containing general provisions on the Structural Funds (1)requires the Commission to draw up guidelines setting out Community priorities for each Objective of theStructural Funds.

These guidelines will have therefore to take account of the provisions of Article 1 of the above proposalfor a Regulation, which stipulate that in pursuing these Objectives, the Community shall contribute topromoting the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities. In doing so,they may take over some elements of the European Spatial Development Perspective.

The Commission is also proposing that one of the three Community Initiatives should cover crossborder,transnational and interregional cooperation and so contribute to balanced regional planning in theEuropean Union. Lastly, certain studies or innovative measures connected with regional planning canbe launched at the initiative of the Commission.

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998.


by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU resources for the trade sector

1. How large a proportion of EU resources in the following areas is assigned to the trade sector:

(a) Budget line B3-4000, industrial relations and social dialogue

(b) Budget line B3-4002, information and training measures for workers’ organizations

(c) Budget line B3-4003, information, consultation and participation of representatives of undertakings

(d) Resources administered by DG XXIII for trade and support for small and medium-sized undertakings

(e) The Leonardo programme.

2. How and to what extent are the European social partners in trade financed by EU resources?


Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission’s efforts to foster the social dialogue cover the creation of the political and logisticalconditions permitting dialogue and the provision of prior and subsequent technical and scientific supportto the various organisations involved in the social dialogue. To achieve this, the Commission has a numberof financial instruments in the form of budget headings B3-4000, B3-4002 and B3-4003. It supportsinitiatives by the social partners at European and national levels by endeavouring to give a European slantto their actions. This covers preliminary awareness-raising (conferences, studies, preparatory meetings,working parties, training on European affairs) and support for follow-up measures resulting from thesocial dialogue (dissemination, monitoring and appraisal of agreements, European action, for example, onyouth employment, and the setting up of an industrial relations training centre).

The recipients of subsidies that can be granted under the budget headings mentioned above includeprofessional associations representing either employers or workers. The aid is intended to provide fundingfor actions and not for the structures or internal operation of the social partners.

The social partners in the distributive trades sector receive support matching their commitment to theCommunity social dialogue. By way of example, Euro-Fiet and EuroCommerce recently received fundingunder budget heading B3-4000 to arrange a joint seminar on the impact of Internet trading on jobs in thesector and to organise a big conference on the distributive trades and the social dialogue in the sector,which is scheduled to take place in Brussels shortly.

As for the amounts that have been provided to the social partners in the distributive trades sector under thebudget headings referred to by the honourable Member, it seemed useful to look at the last five years(1994 to August 1998) for headings B3-4000 and B3-4002 and the period from 1996 to August 1998 forheading B3-4003 (since the latter heading was introduced only in 1996).

The honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of Parliament will receive directly from theCommission a table showing the amounts disbursed under each heading.



(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

Several years ago the French nature conservation organization SEPANSO submitted a complaint to theCommission concerning the massive capture of songbirds and migratory birds in the French department ofLes Landes. The complaint is being dealt with by the Commission under the reference number 213/91.

What progress has been made on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

In 1993 the Commission closed the file on complaint No 91/213 concerning the hunting in France of theortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana), though it continued to address the problem of French law failing toprovide satisfactory protection for the species.

Accordingly, on 24 June 1998 the Commission decided, on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty, torefer the matter to the Court of Justice in view of France’s failure to comply with the judgment of 24 April1988 (Commission v. France, C-252/85).


The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that French regulations on the protection of wild birdspecies still does not indicate correctly all the prohibitions imposed by Article 5(b), (c) and (e) of CouncilDirective 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. (1) Moreover, the sameregulations also fail to indicate all the bird species to be protected under Article 5 of the Directive,including the ortolan bunting.

The complainant has been informed of the Commission’s decision.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.


by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Violations, omissions and shoddy workmanship in connection with the implementation ofprojects in Greece under the Second CSF and the Cohesion Fund and responsibility for thesefailings

The report by the joint steering committee and recent press reports raise important questions about theproper implementation of projects undertaken in Greece within the framework of the Second CommunitySupport Framework and the Cohesion Fund. In particular these reports note a number of violations,omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship by the construction companies and attribute responsibilityfor projects worth a total of DRS 2 billion to the supervising bodies and the relevant ministries; thepossibility of recovering the money is also being considered.

1. Will the Commission say what violations, omissions and cases of shoddy workmanship is it apprisedof or have been otherwise detected, and which projects are concerned?

2. How is the implementation of projects monitored and to what extent is this monitoring adequate andeffective?

3. Which bodies are responsible for the violations and what sanctions are provided for?

4. What measures are being proposed specifically to rectify omissions and also to avoid similarincidents in future?

5. How will it ensure the proper use of the funds set aside in the Community budget for theimplementation of projects?

Supplementary answergiven by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The Commission would point out that the rules in force make implementation of projects part-financed bythe Structural Funds the sole responsibility of the Member States. The supervision of this work isgoverned by national law on public works.

Nevertheless, when the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece for 1994-99 was approved, theCommission took due note of the Greek government’s intention, in the light mainly of the unprecedentedquantity of projects to be carried out, to take special measures, perhaps including reform of the system ofimplementing public works, in order to avoid the weaknesses of the past. To this end, a joint steeringcommittee, made up of experts from Greece and the Commission, was set up to design this reform andmake proposals.

One of the measures taken in this regard was the establishment of an independent quality controlmechanism (ESPEL) for projects receiving Community part-finance. Under Greek Law No 2372/96, aspecialist firm, with an international reputation and selected on the basis of an open competition, wasgiven the task of making random checks on part-financed projects.


The first ESPEL quarterly report found that problems of the type mentioned by the Honourable Memberdid indeed exist. These initial findings seem sufficient to show that there is a certain general qualityproblem (poor quality materials and inadequate checking systems − in particular no test laboratories onwork sites and absence of test protocols). However, the number of random tests on each project examinedmeans that at this stage no specific project can be singled out.

The Greek authorities therefore instructed ESPEL to switch, as from 1 July 1998, from random checks tosystematic and in depth checks on projects, including those previously examined, in order to identify:

− projects suffering from secondary shortcomings: they will be corrected by the contractors;

− projects suffering from major shortcomings which have no safety implications but which will entailhigher maintenance costs: these additional costs will be deducted from payments to the contractorsconcerned;

− the projects suffering from serious shortcomings which cannot be corrected: they will have to berebuilt by the contractors at their own expense.

The Commission expects this matter to make rapid progress and hopes that any financial, disciplinary,penal or other consequences for those responsible will have a dissuasive effect in the future and will resultin lasting improvements to the situation as regards quality, particularly since ESPEL’s routine and in depthinspections will continue and intensify. The Commission therefore welcomes the Greek government’sinitiative to establish this independent mechanism for additional quality checks on part-financed projectsand will follow developments closely.


by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Cadmium

In connection with the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the placing on themarket of fertilizers containing cadmium, the Commission is seeking a further extension of the existingderogations. The Commission intends the extra time to be used mainly for further studies of the impact offertilizers containing cadmium.

The hazards associated with cadmium are adequately known. Why, in spite of this, does the Commissionwish to carry out further studies on the subject?

On what scale are they to be carried out?

Who is to carry them out?

How long does the Commission expect them to take?

What costs will be involved?

What new information does the Commission expect to gain from them?

How will the findings be used?

Which EU Member States are preventing the EU, for example, from adopting Austria’s limit values forfertilizers containing cadmium, and on what grounds?

In Austria, for example, the limit values for fertilizers containing cadmiumwere introduced after thoroughresearch. Will the Commission use the research on which they were based?

If not, does the Commission regard the research already carried out, for example, in Austria as beinginsufficiently scientific?



(28. September 1998)

It is known that there are dangers associated with cadmium, but the danger to humans and the environmentfrom cadmium in fertilisers is insufficiently known. The quantities of cadmium which can be taken up byplants and enter the food chain depend on climate, soil conditions, and other environmental factors whichare very different in Member States. Only in a few Member States is sufficient information available, andnot enough is known at European level to form a basis for Community decisions.

The Commission therefore, with the agreement and participation of Member States, initiated in June 1998a programme of studies by consultants, at a total cost of some ECU 120 000. It aims to increaseinformation at European level, concentrating on sensitive population groups and vulnerable environments.Final results are expected at the end of 2000, to allow the Commission to propose possible Communitymeasures in 2001.

The programme depends on the active participation of Member States, and Austria is playing an importantrole in the review of the need for Community action. All relevant information in the possession of MemberStates, including Austria, will be needed to ensure the success of the programme.


by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Enlargement − justice and home affairs

Further to Question P-1172/98 (1):

1. Could the Commission provide further details of the ‘initiatives to improve the fight againstcorruption’? What measures have actually been carried out?

2. How much of the ECU 100 million has been spent on practical measures to combat corruption (inBulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic)?

3. What measures are being taken to fight corruption in the applicant countries with which negotiationshave already begun?

4. To what extent are Phare appropriations for Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia andEstonia being used to finance anti-corruption measures?

5. Please describe the new institution-building programme. How much Community funding is availablefor it?

6. What practical measures are planned under the Phare programme for asylum policy?

7. What steps have been taken in the individual States to bring their law on aliens up to the requiredstandard?

8. What percentage of the appropriations for the Odysseus programme is being made available forprogrammes in Eastern Europe?

9. Please describe the project which has been planned in cooperation with Member States’ customsexperts. How much Community funding is it receiving, and how?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 74.


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

(17 September 1998)

1. and 3. The fight against corruption is addressed in the individual accession partnerships and thenational programmes for the adoption of the acquis communautaire of the individual candidate countriesin Central and Eastern Europe. In the framework of administrative and judicial reforms specific measuresare envisaged or already implemented including the setting up of specialised units, anti-corruptioncommissions and the establishment of anti-corruption programmes. Nearly all the countries concernedhave made active and passive corruption criminal offences.

2. Project proposals under the ECU 100 million made available under the catch-up facility are stillbeing scrutinized.

4. Phare is currently supporting administrative and judicial reforms in the candidate countries. Theseare an essential first step in the process of reducing corruption.

5. When assisting the transposition of the acquis communautaire, Phare supports in general the processof institution building. An indicative allocation of 30 % of the Phare programme has been made availablefor this activity. The new shaped instrument of twinning between public administrations under thenational Phare allocations will play an important role. Funds available depend on the number of eligibleprojects.

6. Following the identification of legislative, institutional and training needs in the 10 candidatecountries, practitioners will be trained in workshops presenting standards and practices used in theCommunity and will visit corresponding institutions in the Member States.

7. The adaptation of laws on aliens to standards within the Community is foreseen in the nationalprogrammes for the adoption of the acquis. Legislative reforms are in hand.

8. There is no percentage foreseen.

9. There are several projects with Member States’ customs experts. These provide for a total ofapproximately ECU 20 million of Phare support. In addition there will be twinning projects.



(10 July 1998)

Subject: Enlargement − external border controls

In its reply of 27 May 1998 to Question P-1257/98 (1) concerning external border controls, theCommission states that it will be possible to give detailed answers to the questions I raised only afterthe Council has defined the Schengen acquis and after its transposition by the applicant countries has beenreviewed.

1. When does the Commission believe that the definition of the Schengen acquis is likely to becompleted, and how will information be supplied concerning the results of the review?

2. How long is the review of transposition in the Member States likely to take?

The Commission also says that it is primarily up to the applicant countries to overcome theinadequacies, but that the ‘Commission’ will support their efforts through existing Communityprogrammes.

3. From which specific programmes has such support so far been given, or are there plans to give itduring the current budgetary period, how much funding is being provided (as a percentage of the totalcosts involved) and what nominal amounts are involved (in ECU)?

4. To what extent have the applicant countries taken advantage of the opportunity to cover their co-financing contribution from Phare appropriations?


5. According to the Commission’s estimate, what percentage of expenditure on all Communityprogrammes is being used to assist the applicant countries?

6. Austria is among the more recent Schengen Member States, and the cost of meeting the criteriaregarding external border controls was particularly high because of its location (its long Schengenexternal border). Has Austria received any assistance in meeting the cost from Communityprogrammes?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 85.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Assistance to enable applicant countries to meet the Schengen criteria

It has been repeatedly stressed that, if they are to qualify for membership, applicant countries must takeover the acquis communautaire and hence the EU standards governing external border checks. Theeffectiveness of the applicant countries’ border policing is currently attracting increasingly volublecriticism, and the doubts whether the above-mentioned criterion is being fulfilled are mounting. That waswhy, when it addressed Parliament in Strasbourg on 15 July 1998, the Presidency-in-Office of the Councilexpressly called on the Commission to seek ways of helping the applicant countries to secure theirborders, pointing out that the external borders of the 11 countries in question, placed end to end, were6 600 km long and it was necessary to comprehend that order of magnitude.

1. How will the Commission comply with the above request?

2. Is it already making practical preparations? How much funding is it envisaging?

3. Which budget headings should be used to provide the appropriations, and what legal bases will beinvoked to implement the corresponding expenditure?

4. How can such aid be justified, given that other Member States have recently had to rely solely ontheir own resources in order to meet the Schengen criteria, even though, as far as Austria on its own isconcerned − to name but one example − the external border as defined for Schengen purposes is 2 400 kmlong?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2126/98 and E-2674/98given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

Declaration No 44 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam states that, upon the date of entry into force of thatTreaty, the Council shall adopt all the necessary measures referred to in Article 2 of the Protocolintegrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, and in particular the Decisionsdefining the Schengen acquis and breaking down its components between the first and third pillars.Preparatory work is under way on these measures. The Council Decisions mentioned above will bepublished in the Official Journal.

Pursuant to the Schengen acquis on the implementation of the Schengen provisions and to Article 2(2) ofthe Schengen Protocol, the Council, acting with the unanimity of the Schengen members, will decidewhether applicant countries have implemented the Schengen acquis and can take part in the area withoutinternal frontiers. This decision will be taken after ensuring that all the preconditions are met, includingcontrols and surveillance of external borders in accordance with Schengen standards.

In December 1994 the European Council meeting at Essen decided, as part of the preparation of theassociated countries for accession to the Union, to extend cooperation with these countries to third-pillarmatters (including border controls, asylum, immigration, police and customs cooperation, and judicialcooperation). To implement this decision, the Commission requested a report on the needs of the countries


concerned in the areas of justice and home affairs. The task was allocated to a high-level expert who was aformer member of the K4 Committee. In October 1995, the Commission received a report on his visits tothe associated countries, and has since implemented a number of measures to meet the needs identified inthe report.

1. The Phare Horizontal Programme for Justice and Home Affairs (also called the Horizontal PhareJHA Programme). This programme is termed ‘horizontal’ because it covers all the Central and EasternEuropean countries (CEECs) which have applied for membership and emphasises interregional coop-eration and multi-country activities, particularly in the areas of training and exchanges. With a budget ofECU 11 million for the period 1996-1998, the programme enabled a needs identification mission to travelto each of the ten CEECs between June 1997 and June 1998, with the intention of going into the report’sconclusions in greater detail and proposing projects to bring the CEECs up to standard in the JHA area.These missions were carried out by police officers, judges and other officials appointed by the MemberStates through their national justice and home affairs contact points, and covered four areas, three of whichare directly or indirectly linked to border controls (border management, asylum and immigration, policecooperation), with the fourth area covering justice. Provision has also been made under the HorizontalPhare JHA Programme to set up an across-the-board training measure for police forces in the applicantcountries, run by the European Association of Police Colleges. This training measure will be used toharmonise the police training curricula in the CEECs on the basis of the methods used in the Union, andwill include a major section on border controls and, in particular, the fight against trafficking.

2. A Phare multi-country management programme for the eastern frontier of the Baltic States was setup with an ECU 6 million budget from the 1997 Phare allocation to strengthen the capacity of Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania to manage their newly-created eastern frontier and combat cross-border trafficking.The aim of the programme is to make sure that both the ‘green frontier’ and official border posts arecontrolled, and provides support for border guards in the areas of communications, informationtechnology, surveillance, mobility, tactical back-up and training. In addition to these two programmes,mention should also be made of the Phare multi-country customs modernisation programme and, inparticular, the national Phare allocations.

3. The Phare multi-country customs modernisation programme began in 1995. It involves helping theapplicant countries to take more effective action to fight trafficking in drugs, stolen cars and nuclearmaterials. More specifically, an ECU 0,5 million project was launched in October 1997 to make checks atborder posts more efficient by introducing risk-analysis techniques into customs officers’ workingmethods.

4. The national Phare allocations. It is these national allocations that fund most of the work to bring theCEECs up to standard in the JHA area in general, and in the area of border controls in particular, byequipping and training border guards and other forces involved in border surveillance.

A distinction needs to be made here between the situation that existed prior to the adoption of the enhancedpre-accession strategy in December 1997 and the situation since the beginning of 1998.

− the situation up to December 1997. Following the country reports drawn up under the HorizontalPhare JHA Programme, a number of border projects were launched. A project to computerise borderposts was written into the 1997 operational programme for Hungary (ECU 4 million) following amission to that country in June of the same year. The programme for the eastern frontier of the BalticStates (see above) was extended to Poland in 1997 (ECU 12 million). Other border-related projectssuch as the provision of fingerprinting equipment to the Polish police (ECU 5 million) and thedevelopment of machine-readable identity papers in the Czech Republic were funded under previousnational programmes;

− the situation since the beginning of 1998. Under the enhanced pre-accession strategy put forward bythe Commission in its Agenda 2000 document and formally adopted by the European Councilmeeting in Luxembourg in December 1997, the Phare programme has been reshaped to ensure greaterfocus on the goal of accession. The future priorities for the programme include, in particular,assistance for the applicant countries to upgrade their administrative and legal capacity. Approxi-mately 30% of Phare resources will be allocated to this objective, amounting to nearlyECU 500 million in subsidies each year. JHA is one of the four priority areas identified in thecontext of upgrading administrative and legal capacity, and this upgrading is one of the mainchallenges the applicant countries will have to meet if they are to implement the acquis effectively.Twinning schemes between government departments in the Member States and the applicant


countries, including long-term secondments of experts from the Member States to the applicantcountries, will thus be set up in the JHA area from the end of 1998, particularly in the area of bordercontrols. These twinning projects will be funded from the national allocations of the Phareprogramme.

It should be noted that all Phare measures are funded under budget heading B7-500. There is no co-financing by beneficiaries under the Phare programme, unlike programmes under Title VI of the TEU(Grotius, Oisin, Odysseus, Falcone, Stop), which provide for co-financing between the Commission andthe project promoter (the applicant countries can take part in these programmes if invited to do so by theproject initiator, but they cannot submit project applications). Phare nevertheless comes under the generalheading of ‘accession partnerships’ through which the applicant countries undertake to adopt the acquis ofthe Union and its Member States (which requires heavy investment on their part in terms of legislation,reorganisation and training) and obtain financial support from the Union to achieve this goal.

The level of economic development and financial capacity of the CEEC applicants for membership cannotbe compared with that of the three countries which joined the Union in January 1995. Furthermore, theproblems they have to solve in all areas to meet the Copenhagen criteria are infinitely more complex giventhat, with the fall of communism, they have their entire political/administrative, economic and socialsystem to rebuild. Their exceptional circumstances justify the implementation of the enhanced pre-accession strategy put forward by the Commission in its July 1997 Agenda 2000 document and formallyadopted by the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997.


by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: World Cup soccer violence

In view of the horrific acts of violence witnessed during the football World Cup tournament, whatmeasures will the Commission be calling for to combat what is an increasing European wide trend?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1998)

The implementation of appropriate policing measures for the purpose of preventing hooliganism, andgenerally speaking, the issue of violence occurring at sporting events or other occasions attended by largenumbers of people, are primarily matters of public order. The Commission is not in position to interveneconcerning the way police forces of the Member States maintain public order on their own territory.

Within the Justice and Home Affairs framework of the Council, the police cooperation working grouptackles this issue from an operational point of view with a network of liaison officers and annual meetingof contact points. In this context, the Council in 1996 adopted a Recommendation on guidelines forpreventing and restraining disorder connected to football matches (1). More recently in 1997 a Joint Actionwith regard to cooperation on public order and safety and a Resolution on preventing and restrainingfootball hooliganism (2) were adopted by the Council. The implementation of the Recommendation(stadium bans, development of a checklist for media policy, annual report, annual expert meeting, reportto the Council) should start in 1998.

The Commission is of course in favour of the promotion and the implementation of closer policecooperation at a European level and it has financed, in the context of the OISIN programme, a seminar onpolicing football hooliganism, held in Blackburn on 27-28 February 1998. But the implementation ofappropriate measures for preventing and restraining disorder is for Member States in accordance with


their own national legislation and Union law. Furthermore, a Council draft recommendation on theresponsibility of organisers is currently being discussed at a technical level. The Commission is notinvolved in the application of the Union of European football associations (UEFA) regulations concerningstadiums, but it does cooperate with organisations that have a specific role in this area, such as the Councilof Europe where a standing committee has been created.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.5.1996.(2) OJ C 193, 24.6.1997.


by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL)and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Planned forestry biomass incinerator power station at Salinas de Pisuerga (Palancia, Spain)

After five years of administrative proceedings relating to the supply of fuel, the planned incinerator powerstation at Salinas de Pisuerga is now facing enormous opposition from both inside and outside the regionconcerned. So far almost 100 complaints have been lodged by a variety of groups, a number of appealshave been submitted, calling for the project to be revised, and at least three administrative disputes arecurrently underway.

The widespread disquiet has intensified increased by the repeated refusal of the promoter (and also of theCastilla y León regional government) to give any explanation whatsoever regarding their intentions in thearea. At the same time it has been stated that the data relating to the supply of fuel are confidential.

What is more, the project is located on the very edge of the areas protected under the Brown Bear RescuePlan and Project 2000, areas in which considerable efforts have also been made to promote rural tourism.The current promoter has been granted public aid totalling 399 860 000 pesetas (OM-PAEE and SG-ERDF).

1. Does the Commission believe the nature of this project to be compatible with what is laid down inthe White Paper entitled ‘Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy’, which was published by theCommission on 26 November 1997?

2. Does the Commission regard it as logical to subsidize at one and the same time both the project inquestion and others in the same area which are clearly incompatible with it?

3. Has the Commission any evidence that incinerators do not comply with Directive 89/369/EC (1),Directive 84/360/EEC (2) and Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on air pollution and waste?

4. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that incinerators which are still inoperation comply with Community law?What priority is to be given to the needs and the interests of localpeople?

5. In view of the EU’s wish to develop renewable energy sources, is there any regulation which relatesto biomass production plants?

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32.(2) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.



(5 October 1998)

1. It is indeed so that, under the White Paper on the promotion of renewable energy sources (1), thepromotion of biomass takes pride of place. However, it goes without saving that in no way can thatdevelopment be detrimental to the environment. It is stipulated in the White Paper that, where action istaken to promote renewable energy sources, the net environmental effects of the various energy sourceswill be taken into account.

It is assumed as far as the Salinas de Pisuerga project is concerned that the plant in question is intended toincinerate forestry waste. The European waste catalogue has a specific entry for this type of waste:02 01 07 waste from forestry exploitation.

2. It should be pointed out that neither the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) nor theCohesion Fund have subsidised the forestry-biomass-fired power station at Salinas de Pisuerga.

3. Even if the current provisions for waste incineration did not apply to this type of incinerator, Article4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2) would do so. This requires Member Statesto take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangeringhuman health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and, inparticular, without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance due to noiseor odours, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. In view of thecontent of the question the assessment by the authorities of Article 4 should in this case be clarified.

4. The region of Palencia is part of the autonomous community of Castilla y Léon. The Commissionhas received a waste management plan for this community. The plan only covers municipal waste and theinstallation in question is not included in this plan. It is unclear to what extent the revision of the plan,which should be presented to the government in early 1999, will include this installation. Inclusion of anincinerator in an approved waste management plan is a condition to be meet before the Community cancontribute financially to such installations via the structural or regional funds.

5. Council Regulation (EEC) 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers ofcertain arable crops provides that land that has been satisfied may be used to grow products which are notdirectly intended for human or animal consumption.

Most of the non-food arable crops obtained from such land whose being left fallow has been eitherobligatory or voluntary are intended for the production of renewable energy sources (3).

(1) COM(97) 599 final. .(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.(3) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992.


by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) and Horst Schnellhardt (PPE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Availability of veterinary medicinal products − crisis regarding treatment

In the Federal Republic of Germany increasing numbers of vets and their professional associations arecomplaining about the declining available range of veterinary medicinal products. As a result theveterinary care of certain groups of animals is being placed at risk and has become impossible in somecases. There are clearly also similar problems with homeopathic medicinal products, in particular foranimals providing foodstuffs.


1. a) How does the Commission assess this development?

b) What does the Commission consider to be the cause of this trend?

c) Is it aware of similar complaints from other Member States?

d) What action does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the situation?

2. Can the Commission provide information on the criteria for assessing homeopathic medicinalproducts for animals providing foodstuffs in relation to approval or certification validity by theEuropean Agency for the evaluation of medicinal products?


(30 September 1998)

1. The Commission is aware of the fact that the number of veterinary medicinal products available inthe Community for animals intended for food production is decreasing.

The reasons for this are firstly that the pharmaceutical industry does not apply for marketing authorisa-tions or maximum residue limits (MRLs) for minor species and minor uses. It claims that there is notsufficient revenue in these products to justify the necessary investments in studies. This applies especiallyto studies designed to prove that residues of pharmacologically active substances are not harmful tohuman health, and to develop methods of analysis necessary to monitor the residues in foods (required byCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for theestablishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary mexicinal products in foodstuffs of animalorigin (1)). Another reason is that for some substances maximum residue limits cannot be established sincetheir residues have proven to be hazardous to the consumer at any limit.

The Commission is considering various options to facilitate the authorisation of veterinary medicinalproducts in certain circumstances, which take the principles of consumer protection into account.

2. A homeopathic veterinary medicine intended for use in animals the flesh or products of which areintended for human consumption has to be authorised for marketing according to the requirements ofCouncil Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the MemberStates relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) and Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September1992 widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal products and laying down additionalprovisions on homeopathic veterinary medicinal products (3). One of the conditions that has to be fulfilledbefore a marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product can be granted is that the residues infoodstuffs of any pharmacological active substance contained therein has been positively evaluated. Thisevaluation has to be performed according to Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.(2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981.(3) OJ L 297, 13.10.1992.


by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Council

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Illegal placement of foreign workers in the German construction industry

Is the Council aware that Dutch companies are illegally arranging employment for English workers onGerman building sites?

To what extent does the Council intend to take action on this matter?


Reply

(16 November 1998)

The Council has no information on the points mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question.


by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Relations with Cuba

In its resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliamenton the relations between the European Union and Cuba (COM(95) 0306 − C4-0298/95), adopted on18 January 1996, (A4-0312/95) (1), the European Parliament called on the Commission to provide Cubawith technical assistance in introducing new institutional and structural measures which are essential toensure the success of the economic reforms now under way. The European Parliament also upheld theright of Cuban workers to exercise their right to strike, to set up independent trade unions and to enter intodirect contractual relations with employers instead of having to use official intermediaries and consideredthat the EU must support the democratization process in Cuba at all levels.

According to the latest reports, no freedom of association in the trade unions exists in Cuba to representand protect the interests and rights of workers, there is no substantial improvement in the living conditionsof Cuban citizens and no essential progress in the democratization process.

What kind and what extent of technical assistance did the Commission provide to Cuba in introducing newinstitutional and structural measures essential to the success of the economic reforms? Does theCommission monitor the conditions of Cuban workers and citizens? What actions has the Commissionundertaken to foster the improvement of the situation of Cuban workers and citizens?

(1) OJ C 32, 5.2.1996, p. 85.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

The Commission is acutely aware of the various resolutions passed by Parliament concerning EU relationswith Cuba, particularly the 1996 recommendations referred to by the Honourable Member, whichprovided for EU support for the reform process in Cuba.

The common position adopted by the EU on 2 December 1996 (1) and reviewed in June this year sets thesame objective, i.e. of promoting a peaceful process of transition to a multi-party democracy, greaterrespect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, sustainable economic recovery and an improvementin the living standards of the Cuban people. The Commission has strictly adhered to those guidelines in itscooperation with Cuba.

The Commission has made a considerable effort to improve living standards for the Cuban people.Humanitarian and food aid supplied by the Commission helps to provide for the basic needs of the poorestin Cuba. The Commission is the main aid donor in Cuba, mainly through the various ‘overall plans’ ofhumanitarian aid for the Cuban population.

Furthermore, in line with Council recommendations, the Commission wishes to support the process ofopening up the Cuban economy. It has started up a number of relevant projects since 1994 andprogrammed the following projects to support economic reform in 1998: a project to support thedevelopment of links between European and Cuban small and medium-sized enterprises; a trainingprogramme for Cuban company managers; a project to support the setting-up of the tax administration,and a project to assist with reform of the banking system.


In addition, at the Council’s request, the Commission sent two technical missions to Cuba to assess theprogress of economic and legal reform with a view to considering cooperation in those areas. Theirrecommendations are currently under examination. The legal mission took the opportunity to raise theissue of labour rights with the Cuban authorities, who expressed interest in cooperation with regard to theirreform of labour laws. The Commission is of the opinion that such cooperation is bound to improve thesituation of Cuban workers.

The EU is still concerned about the attacks on freedom of expression and association. It has set up aworking party on human rights in Havana. When the common position was last reviewed, the Councilnoted that the working party had worked hard in 1998 to further the dialogue on human rights in Cuba.

(1) OJ L 322, 12.12.1996.


by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)

What Commission initiatives and hence what programmes or projects will be affected by the Commis-sion’s decision to freeze the budget lines which have no legal basis in the light of the content of the Court’sjudgment of 12 May 1998?


(27 October 1998)

The Commission adopted an immediate protective measure after the Court of Justice ruled that only fornon-significant measures could expenditure be charged to the Community budget without an instrumentof secondary legislation having first to be adopted. As guardian of the proper implementation of Unionlegislation, the Commission could not ignore the Court¢s ruling. As the authority responsible forimplementing the budget, it had to ensure that it could implement with complete legal certainty theheadings apparently lacking a legal basis in the 1998 budget, and therefore embarked on a detailedexamination of all the headings concerned. Once the check was complete, and taking account of theoutcome of the Council meeting (Budgets) on 17 July 1998, a number of cases could be identified.

In the case of headings where normal operation resumed in full, the temporary suspension will have led tono more than a momentary slowdown in implementation. Following the Commission’s decision tosuspend operations on 10 June 1998, the Commission acted to resume implementation of the headingsconcerned gradually, at the latest by 14 July 1998. Similarly, the implementation of measures acknowl-edged to be politically sensitive, such as measures to combat violence against children, adolescents andwomen, measures to deal with illegal and harmful content on the Internet, support for and monitoring ofelectoral processes, and measures relating to human rights and democracy, resumed immediately after theconciliation meeting when the Council (Budgets) was meeting.

In the case of headings which are still partly or totally suspended, three types may be distinguished:

− those for which a legal basis has been proposed will be implemented as soon as the legal basis isadopted. The level of utilisation of 1998 appropriations will depend on the date of adoption of thelegal basis. In any event, if the legal basis is adopted at the end of the year, the correspondingappropriations could in principle be carried over and used next year;


− the headings where spending cannot resume because no legal basis has been proposed and becausethey relate to measures which cannot be regarded as autonomous or as preparatory measures or pilotschemes will be examined individually to determine to what extent they can nevertheless beimplemented on the principle of catering for the legitimate expectations of potential beneficiariesand safeguarding existing investments. Authorising departments affected by partly or totallysuspended headings were contacted to determine how they propose to implement the budget inaccordance with the ad hoc measures. The findings were notified to the budgetary authority, inparticular Parliament’s Committee on Budgets at the plenary meeting in Strasbourg in September;

− there remains the special case of the headings concerning the fight against poverty and socialexclusion for which the Treaty of Amsterdam could supply the necessary means of establishing therequisite legal bases. These headings were the subject of a joint declaration by the Council and theCommission at the Council meeting (Budgets) on 17 July 1998. On a Commission proposal, on16 September 1998 steps were taken to redirect these measures along truly innovatory lines in relationto the approach developed hitherto, and which will enable them to be regarded as preparatory toCommunity action in new areas provided for by the Treaty of Amsterdam. New measures can then beimplemented.


by Outi Ojala (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Treatment of animals for slaughter in the EU

In Finland it appears that the treatment of animals for slaughter has deteriorated drastically with EUmembership. For example in 1997-98 20% of chickens arriving at the two largest slaughterhouses had tobe rejected, whereas in 1994 the figure was only 5%. The rejection figures for fat pigs and cattle have alsorisen. The reason for this deterioration in the condition of livestock for slaughter is thought to be thereduction in producer prices − by a half in the case of eggs − as a result of which farms have been cuttingcorners on animal welfare. For example, the poor condition of hens is thought to result from a shortage offeed when producers have cut their expenditure on fodder.

Another problem with hens is the use of battery units, which in Finland account for 95% of all henaccommodation. These lead to a further deterioration in the hens’ condition. The EU’s aid policy alsoaffects the situation. Because aid is allocated to farms on the basis of head of livestock, farmersunnecessarily prolong the suffering of their animals, which are already in poor condition.

1. Is the Commission aware of the problems related to the production of animals for slaughter, and aresimilar trends emerging elsewhere in the EU?

2. What does the Commission feel about the fact that EU subsidies favour the quantity of animals forslaughter over their quality? Has this matter been discussed in the Commission and does the Commissionpropose to do anything about it in future? Will these problems remain even after the Agenda 2000agricultural reforms or have they been taken into account in those reforms?

3. Does the Commission propose to take any measures to prohibit the use of battery cages for hensaltogether, or does it even propose to shorten the 2009 deadline significantly? If not, why not?

4. Under Directive 88/166/EEC (1), hens kept in battery cages must inter alia be assured access tosufficient food. Does the Commission consider that this is contrary to the situation in Finland, and if so,what does it propose to do about it? Might the payment of subsidies be made conditional on the recipients’complying with current animal welfare legislation?

(1) OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83.



(16 September 1998)

1. The Commission is not aware of problems related to the production of animals for slaughter inFinland, or in any other Member State, resulting from reduced producer prices.

2. The Act of Accession for Austria, Finland and Sweden provided for the immediate introduction ofcommon (lower) agricultural prices in these new Member States as of 1 January 1995. Finland reserved theright to grant degressive national subsidies as well as national investment aids to farmers during atransitional period until the problems from the small-scale structure of its agriculture are overcome.

In animal production, degressive national aids are paid on a per head basis in accordance withinternational agreements. It is not thought that in egg, broiler or pig production payment of these aidshas lead to lower quality since the greater part of farmers’ revenue still comes from the prices obtained.

In the reform package of Agenda 2000 (1) no direct subsidies are envisaged in the three sectors mentioned.

3. The Commission has recently presented a proposal to the Council (2) which lays down minimumstandards for the protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, including cages. The proposal ispresently under discussion in the Council and has been sent to the Parliament for an opinion.

The new requirements would, if adopted, apply to newly built or rebuilt systems from 1 January 1999 andfrom 1 January 2009 for all housing systems. This is a normal transition period. As a general rule under thenew proposal hens should be housed in a system which allows nesting, dustbathing and perching. MemberStates may, however, authorise derogations from dustbathing and nesting in order to permit the use ofbattery cages, provided that the hens have a minimum area of 800 cm2 each.

4. The Commission does not have any information whether in Finland hens in battery cages receivesufficient food. The minimum standards in the present legislation concerning laying hens in battery cageshave to be met independent of subsidies. The national authorities monitor compliance with the foodrequirements and react if there is any infringement.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.(2) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.


by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Insurance of German cars in Sweden

Private individuals in Sweden who opt to import their cars directly rather than go through a Swedish dealerare discriminated against in that insurance companies raise their requirements to insure cars comingdirectly from Germany on the grounds that there is a higher risk of their being stolen. The requirements arean immobiliser, marked windows and an alarm, which increases the cost to the owner by someSEK(10)000. Employment created in Västerbotten by Reidars Bil, a firm importing cars from other EUcountries on behalf of private buyers, is now under threat.

Is there any EC Directive which regulates these problems and what action will the Commission take inresponse to this incongruous situation?



(12 November 1998)

The Community Motor Insurance Directives provide for the introduction of a system of compulsoryinsurance against civil liability guaranteeing compensation for victims of road accidents. They makeinsurance against civil liability compulsory for motorists (1), define the extent of this protection by settingminimum protection thresholds (in ecus) that are applicable in every Member State and by specifying whois to be covered by those compulsory arrangements in respect of civil liability (2), and provide forcomplete coverage of the territory of the Community on the basis of a single premium (3). They do not,however, contain any provisions on comprehensive insurance, which includes anti-theft insurance, andharmonisation in this respect is not under consideration, for the time being at least. Firstly, Member Statesare not in favour of harmonisation and this would effectively prevent a directive on comprehensiveinsurance being adopted by the Council. Secondly, standardising all insurance products might bedisadvantageous to the consumer, who currently enjoys a wide choice of products on the markets ofthe different Member States.

As regards the less favourable conditions applied to imported cars than to cars manufactured in Sweden, itshould be pointed out that the rules of the Treaty on the prohibition of nationality-based discriminationand on free movement are, in principle, applicable to state measures and not to measures of private origin.The Court of Justice has accepted exceptions to this rule only in cases where restrictions of private originresult from measures of a private nature aimed at laying down on a collective basis the conditions forcarrying on a professional activity (4). However, the individual behaviour of insurance companies in thecontext of their relations with their customers cannot be covered by this exception. The contractual linkbetween insurer and insured creates private-law links which, in principle, fall within the scope of nationallaw and may be the subject of appeals before the national courts.

In any event, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to enable theCommission to establish whether or not the differential treatment which Swedish insurance companiesmay apply to cars imported from other Member States is discriminatory. For example, if the anti-theftequipment fitted to these cars does not correspond to that fitted to cars sold in Sweden − possibly becausethe conditions laid down for anti-theft insurance in other Member States are less stringent than in Sweden− Swedish insurance companies are entitled to require the owners of such vehicles to supplement thisequipment with more efficient systems.

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating toinsurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and to the enforcement of the obligation toinsure against such liability (OJ L 103, 2.5.1972).

(2) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member Statesrelating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ L 8, 11.1.1984).

(3) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member Statesrelating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ L 129, 19.5.1990).

(4) Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECRI-4165; Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.


by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Infringement of European law by the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular through Article60 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO)

1. Does Article 60, paragraph 7 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO) (Regulation on theentry into service of motor vehicles) infringe the legal provisions of the European Union on the type andcomposition of registration numbers and their supports?


Article 60, paragraph 7 prohibits the attachment to the supports of registration numbers of any type ofdevice which could give rise to confusion with official registration numbers or which could impair theeffect of these numbers.

2. If not, is the Commission planning a harmonization of the provisions on the supports for registrationnumbers in the foreseeable future?

3. Will the Commission also create the possibility of making use of additional advertising space on thesupports, for which there is at present no legal provision in the Federal Republic of Germany? A certainamount of scope could create some 2 500 jobs in Germany.

4. What format might this specific provision on the advertising space have?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission considers that Article 60, paragraph 7, of the German StVZO does not conflict with thetype approval requirements for the place and format of registration plates as laid down in CouncilDirective 70/222/EEC of 20March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating tothe space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers (1).

The Commission does not intend to propose a change of the type approval legislation on this matter.

(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970.


by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Use of support funds in Italy

Is it correct that in 1991, 1992 and 1993 European support funds were granted for the renovation of oldfarmhouses with the aim of creating holiday homes near to Umbertide in Umbria, Italy?

If so, is it correct that these European support funds for the renovation of the farmhouses or holiday homesamounted to about ITL 6 billion?

If so, is it correct that these houses were never rented and are now in exactly the same condition as before?


(28 September 1998)

The operational programme of the region of Umbria for the development of rural areas under Objective5(b) for the period 1991-93 provides for, inter alia, the part-financing of investments aimed at renovating,for tourist purposes, buildings of particular cultural value which have deteriorated owing to their non-utilisation.

The implementation of the programme is the responsibility of the region of Umbria. According to theinformation provided by the region three projects of the above-mentioned type were part-financed in thecommune of Umbertide under the Objective 5(b) programme during the period 1991-93 for a total publiccontribution of 379 million lire, 50% of which was from the European Regional Development Fund(ERDF).


The regional authority carried out, for the three projects, an on-the-spot check of the completion of thework and its correctness. The granting of aid was strictly conditional on the building being used for touristactivity for 10 years, under pain of financing being withdrawn. Within the framework of partnership, theCommission will invite the region of Umbria to check compliance with this condition.


by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Europartenariat

Europartenariat is a programme set up by the Commission in 1987 with the aim of stepping up cooperationbetween undertakings (SMUs). To this end a major event is held every six months, each time in a differentEuropean region. Alongside this event, at which meetings are arranged between companies andpresentations made, a catalogue is published which is translated into five languages and distributed in80 countries.

In connection with this event and the programme:

1. How is the venue for the events selected?

2. Which people and organizations are included in the ‘network of national counsellors’? Whichorganization is involved in Austria?

3. According to what criteria are companies selected to take part in this event?

4. According to what criteria are the counsellors selected who choose appropriate business partnersabroad?

5. What sums are disbursed by the Commission for the preparation and implementation of this event?

6. What are the costs of the interpreting service which is made available?

7. What proportion of the costs is received by these counsellors in fees?

8. How many participants are involved in these events?

9. In which five languages is the catalogue of the event translated?

10. What is the size of the print-run and what is the cost of the catalogue distributed in more than 80countries?

11. How are the desired positive effects of this event examined or assessed?

12. Is there a uniform evaluation procedure?


(23 October 1998)

1. The choice for a Member State is based on a request by the authorities of the Member State to theCommission.

2. The national counsellors are intermediary organisations of the different Member States themselvesthat have close links with the business community in their Member States (often chambers of commerce).For Austria, the Austrian federal economic chamber acts as national counsellor.

3. The minimum requirements from the Commission are that companies are small and medium sizedenterprises (SMEs) (according to the Commission’s definition (1)) that they must have proved to havebeen viable (at least three years in business) and that they must be capable of international co-operation.


4. The choice of the national counsellors is − with regard to those active in the Community − inprinciple made by the main organiser itself, although former organisers and the Commission are consultedon this.

5. The budget for the organisation of a Europartenariat event is around ECU 3 million (one third ofwhich is provided by the national or regional authorities concerned).

6. At a Europartenariat between 150 and 250 interpreters can be used. Costs for this item in recentevents were around ECU 100 000.

7. The fees for the Community national counsellors take up approximately 15 to 20% of the totalbudget.

8. The number of participating firms in a Europartenariat event is around 2000.

9. The five languages used for the catalogues are English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, plusthe organising country’s language itself if necessary or desired.

10. The size of the print-run is ECU 65 000 - 80 000. The cost of the catalogues is around ECU 400 000(costs include design, printing, and shipment).

11. The main organiser is requested to submit two evaluation reports to the Commission, one threemonths after the event, and one a year after the event. In addition, the national counsellors are required towrite evaluation reports. The results of the latter are to be included in the reports of the main organiser tothe Commission.

12. Yes, as described above. In addition, the Commission provides a main organiser with standardquestionnaires to be used in interviewing companies (based on examples obtained via earlier events), andfor standard formats of reporting by national counsellors.

(1) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996.


by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Payments for intervention storage

What level of payments are made by the Commission to Member States for in situ intervention storage ofcereals? In addition, what additional payments are made for handling cereals entering and leavingintervention stores?

What correlation is there between payments made in Member States and the rates set by the EU? Can theCommission publish the rates of payment made in Member States?

Does the Commission consider that different payments rates for storage across the EU distort competi-tion?


(8 September 1998)

The intervention storage costs of cereals are reimbursed to the Member States on the basis of standardamounts fixed from time to time by Commission decision. The standard amounts applicable for the 1998financial year are ECU 1,76 per ton entry costs (1), ECU 1,71 per ton removal costs with tolerance (2)(ECU 1,98 per ton without tolerance) and ECU 1,11 per ton per month storage costs.


The method of calculation of these standard amounts, which are applied across the Community, is laiddown in Commission Regulation (EEC) 1643/89 of 12 June 1989 defining the standard amounts to be usedfor financing material operations arising from the public storage of agricultural products (3) and is basedon the weighted average of the real costs communicated by the four least expensive Member States,provided that those Member States hold at least 33% of the quantities of the product in question. TheCommission does not have a policy of publishing the real rates communicated to it for the purpose of thiscalculation.

Since the Commission pays a uniform rate throughout the Community, the suggestion that differentpayment rates for storage across the Community distort competition is not relevant. Although the real ratesapplicable from oneMember State to another may vary, this is a reflection of the market conditions in eachMember State.

(1) If no physical movement of product takes place, the standard amount is reduced by ECU 0,72 per ton.(2) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3597/90 of 12 December 1990 on the accounting rules for intervention

measures involving the buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention agencies, OJ L 350,14.12.1990.

(3) OJ L 162, 13.6.1989.


by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE)and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Olive oil and blends

Why does the most recent reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil approved by theCouncil not include a ban on blends, even though their use is detrimental to the quality or designations oforigin of olive oil and, moreover, the European Parliament had supported such a ban in its recommenda-tions?


(28 September 1998)

Mixtures of olive oil and other vegetable oils do not qualify for protected designations of origin orprotected geographical indications.

The Council and the Commission, in connection with the compromise of 25 June 1998, agreed to giveparticular priority to a detailed examination of quality strategy during the period preceding the definitiveproposal for the reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil. This includes the questionof mixtures of olive oil and seed oils. This question requires an investigation of the various possibleoptions, for which Member States put forward contradictory arguments, and has to be studied inconnection with aspects relating to analyses and quality control.


by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE)and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Number of bovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain

In the Agenda 2000 forecasts and the proposals for regulations concerning the reform of the CAP, theCommission has determined that 649 896 bovine animals qualify for premiums in Spain.


Has the Commission’s criterion been amended, or does it still intend to increase the current number ofbovine animals eligible for premiums in Spain?


(25 September 1998)

The Commission does not at this stage intend to change its proposal on the reform of the beef and vealsector (1) as presented in March 1998. Moreover, the Commission has paid due regard to the Council’srequest, as expressed during the compromise negotiations on the prices package and related measures for1998/99, that a decision be taken under Agenda 2000 on the entitlements to beef and veal premiums inSpain and Portugal.

(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.


by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Environmentally sound cotton production

European consumers are, quite rightly, increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of theirtextile products. To promote fair and environmentally sound world trade, they want to be sure about theclothes they wear. In industry too, there is a steadily growing awareness of this ethical dimension ofproduction and trade. At present many problems still exist with regard to cotton growing. A morestructured approach would be desirable, and the European Union could play a pioneering role in thisregard.

1. Has the Commission taken any steps to promote the use and sale of cotton produced byenvironmentally sound methods?

2. Will the Commission introduce a special ecolabel for cotton products making it clear, inter alia, thatno prohibited dyes have been used in their production and that the cotton has been grown in anenvironmentally sound manner (without using pesticides)?

3. Is consideration being given to granting special preferential treatment to products (e.g. textiles)produced by ecologically sound methods, as part of the WTO agreements on international trade?

4. Will the Commission consider further measures to support ecotextiles, e.g. research, special projectsin conjunction with industry, pilot projects for ecocotton, etc.?


(5 October 1998)

Within the framework of the Community eco-label award scheme, established by Council Regulation(EEC) 880/92 (1), criteria were adopted in May 1996 for bed-linen and T-shirts, made from cotton orblends of cotton and polyester.

The criteria limit the presence in cotton fibres of residues of certain environmentally harmful pesticide-active substances, and exempt organic cotton (that is produced in conformity with Council Regulation(EEC) 2092/91 (2) on organic production of agricultural products) from testing in this respect. The criteriaaddress the key production processes to ensure a high level of environmental protection during themanufacture of the textile products, and exclude dyestuffs that are potentially carcinogenic. In addition, aseries of tests are made on the eco-labelled product to ensure that it is fit for use. Work is being carried outto extend the eco-label to most other textile products and fibres.


The debate in the World trade organization (WTO) committee on trade and environment has so far mainlyfocused on the relationship between environmental requirements, including measures pursuant tomultilateral environmental agreements, and trade rules, as well as on the environmental benefits ofremoving trade restrictions and distortions. The establishment of special preferences for environmentallyfriendly products has not been specifically considered. The Commission would however support furtherwork to examine ‘win-win’ situations of this nature which are a concrete example of how trade andenvironment can be mutually supportive of sustainable development.

Finally, the Commission co-finances a number of research projects which aim to develop cleaner textileproduction techniques.

(1) OJ L 99, 11.4.1992.(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.


by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Horse registration scheme

Given that in many parts of the European Union a sharp distinction is drawn between horses bred for meatand those used for recreation, has the Commission considered introducing a registration scheme wherebyhorses not destined for consumption could continue to be treated with medicines currently used to treatcommon ailments?


(21 September 1998)

Horses (and other domestic solipeds like donkeys and ponies) are used as ‘food-producing animals’ in theCommunity. If they are slaughtered and their meat is intended for human consumption the rules of CouncilDirective 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in freshmeat (1) have to be applied.

It has been suggested that because horses kept for sporting purposes do not enter the food chain, theyshould be excluded from the ‘residue requirements’ of Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (2)and Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for theestablishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animalorigin (3). However, many horses enter the meat production chain at the end of their lives, irrespective ofwhether they were kept for meat production or recreational purposes. This is also the case with horses incountries where horsemeat is not usually consumed since these horses are often exported to othercountries where they are slaughtered for human consumption. Separation of sporting or recreationalanimals from meat-producing animals is not easily achieved. Any system of control would need to be bothstraightforward and reliable. Simply relying on documentation (especially if such documentation justtakes the form of a declaration by the horse’s owner) will not fulfil these requirements. Indelible markingwith microchips, branding and tattooing have all been suggested and discussions are still under way as towhether such marking systems are likely to be feasible and effective. It is clear that any solution will haveto be valid for the whole Community and not for specific Member States.

At present, the Commission is seeking a solution for the existing problems, which takes the principles ofconsumer protection into account.

(1) OJ L 121, 29.7.1964.(2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981.(3) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.



by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Ban on exports of textile waste for recycling

Pursuant to Regulation (EEC) 259/93 (1) companies are forbidden from exporting hazardous wastematerials to countries which are not members of the OECD. In December 1996 the scope of this regulationwas extended to the export of waste materials for recycling. Secondhand textiles are an example of theexports which are now prohibited.

This causes major problems to companies which export these textiles for reuse or recycling.

What exactly are the reasons why the Commission considers that secondhand textiles are waste materials?

Is the Commission aware of the ESC opinion (10/95) which criticizes the total ban on the export ofproducts for recycling, in view of the economic and ecological importance of recycling?

What effect does this ban have on employment opportunities both inside and outside the Union?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.


(7 October 1998)

The reasons for which secondhand textiles constitute waste materials are set out in the Commission’sanswer to Written Question E-107/98 by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten (1).

The Commission’s amended proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules and proceduresto apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste (2) would apply a controlprocedure (prior informed consent) to exports of non-hazardous wastes on the basis of the precautionaryprinciple, but would prohibit exports of non-hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries thathave indicated they do not wish to receive such imports.

The Commission is aware of the opinion of the Economic and social committee to which the HonourableMember refers and of the economic and ecological issues involved. It is for these reasons that theCommission has proposed a control procedure, rather than a total ban which would have its greatestimpact on some of the world’s poorest countries with the most fragile economies. The Commission hashowever not made an assessment of the effects on employment.

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 22.(2) COM(94) 678 final.


by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Criminal financial assets

What steps is the Council planning to take to utilise the unique opportunity available to identify criminalfinancial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro?

Are there plans to enlarge Europol’s remit to set up a financial unit to enable Europe-wide coordinationand cooperation, particularly with regards to drug monies?


Reply

(16 November 1998)

Various Council working parties are currently examining the opportunities available to identify criminalfinancial assets at the instant of the conversion from national currencies to the euro, on the basis ofsuggestions by the Member States. The Austrian Presidency is at present preparing to take an initiative toensure an adequate response to this problem by the adoption of provisions for the protection of the euro.

Europol is competent in respect of money laundering activities in connection with unlawful drugtrafficking (Article 2(3) under 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2) Europol Convention). Moreover, withinthe framework of the implementation of the Action Plan against organised crime (1) (see RecommendationNo 26), various initiatives are already under way to ensure that financial units set up in the Member Statescooperate and coordinate in an appropriate manner. The Council has recently received the second reportby the Commission on the implementation of the Directive on prevention of the use of the financial systemfor the purpose of money laundering (2) and intends to take the necessary measures to follow up thatreport, inter alia to ensure that criminal assets are identified. Moreover, Council bodies are examining aproposal to extend Europol’s remit to cover action to combat the forgery of money (including the euro).

(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.


by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Waste returned to product producers and sellers

Would the Commission advise me of any European legislation or recommendations which require orencourage consumers to return waste from products they have purchased to the producers or sellers ofthose products?

I am aware, for example, that certain companies producing ink cartridges for printers and fax machinesenable consumers to return the cartridges free of charge for the purposes of recycling. Is the Commissioninvolved in any such schemes for this or other types of waste (packaging), or in encouraging the same?


(16 September 1998)

Producer responsibility schemes exist in certain Member States for a number of waste streams, such aspackaging waste in Germany, end of life electrical and electronic equipment in the Netherlands. In view ofthe environmental and economic advantages linked to producer responsibility this principle wasintroduced at Community level by the Community strategy for waste management (1). This was endorsedby the Parliament in its Resolution of 14 November 1996 on the Community strategy for wastemanagement.

To make the principle of producer responsibility work, the consumer has an important role to play. It is upto him to make the wastes available to the producer. Accordingly, the concept of the Parliament andCouncil Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (2) implies theparticipation of the consumer. This is also true for the Commission proposal for a directive on end of lifevehicles (3).


As for the sector explicitly mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission work programme for1998 foresees the adoption of a Commission initiative on waste from electrical and electronic equipment(WEEE). Information technology (IT) equipment, including fax machines, would be part of the scope ofsuch a measure, as well as various kinds of consumables, such as cartridges. This legislation should allowconsumers to return such equipment and components free of charge for the purposes of recycling.

(1) COM(96) 399 final.(2) OJ L 365, 21.12.1994.(3) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive

Article 6 of the Euratom Directive requires that no practice involving exposures to radiation should beadopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society to offset the radiationdetriment it causes.

In the legal judgment in the case of R v. HMIP & Others ex parte Greenpeace Ltd & Lancashire CountyCouncil (1994) Mr Justice Potts ruled that Ministers had erred in law in concluding that justification of theauthorisation (to discharge radioactivity) was not needed and that there was a legal obligation to justify thegrant of authorisations.

However, since then, the THORP reprocessing plant has consistently failed to keep any of the goals onwhich this judgment was reached. On this basis, what action does the Commission intend to take againstBritain to ensure compliance with the Directive?


(2 October 1998)

The new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) does not differ in effect from the previousDirective (Directive 80/836/Euratom (2) as revised by Directive 84/467/Euratom (3)) on the principle ofjustification, which principle applies to types classes or categories of practice. Determination of thejustification of any new classes or types of practices is the duty of the Member State. It should take placebefore the introduction of the class or type of practice and as early as possible to reduce the influence ofthe already incurred costs in balancing economic and social factors against health detriment. Thecommunication (4) from the Commission concerning the implementation of Council Directive96/29/Euratom states that ‘Compliance with this principle can be safely assumed in respect of a newclass or type of practice by the existence or laying down of regulations specifically concerning the class ortype of practice’. However the newly introduced proviso of Article 6 (2) of that Directive reflects that theremight be a need to review the justification of existing classes or types of practices.

When transposing the new basic safety standards before 13 May 2000 as required by the Directive theUnited Kingdom will communicate its draft legislation according to the Article 33 procedure of theEuratom Treaty. The Commission will make appropriate recommendations on the provisions related to theprinciple of justification with a view to harmonising the provisions applicable in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.(3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.(4) OJ C 133, 30.4.1998.



by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Mutual recognition of driving licences by Member States

The many German citizens who have chosen to take up residence in this frontier region bordering onGermany have to complete a large number of administrative formalities; for example, their Germandriving licences have to be exchanged for French ones. One German national living in France whoproduced his German driving licence after being stopped for a police inspection in France in 1997 wasfined.

There is a European directive on the mutual recognition of driving licences. Could the Commission reporton the progress made in incorporating it into national law, particularly in France and Germany?


(22 September 1998)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) came into effect on 1 July 1996.Article 1.2 introduces the principle of mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States.

Given the fact that several Member States did not transpose Directive 91/439/EEC on time, theCommission opened infringement proceedings against them, including Germany and France. The Germanauthorities notified the Commission on 2 June 1998 of the transposition of Directive 91/439/EEC intonational law, which will enter into force on 1 January 1999. The French authorities notified theCommission on 18 March 1998 of a draft decree to transpose Directive 91/439/EEC. This draft decreeis expected to enter into force on 1 January 1999.

However, all Member States have respected the principle of mutual recognition since 1 July 1996, even inthe absence of formal transposition. In cases that have arisen to date, the central French and Germanauthorities have taken action to ensure the application of this principle, even retrospectively, when localauthorities that were not aware of Community law were infringing this principle.

The Commission will follow up all cases brought to its attention by Union citizens and will take thenecessary steps to ensure the principle of mutual recognition is applied in practice.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.


by Helwin Peter (PSE), Hiltrud Breyer (V)and Doris Pack (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Marriage, family, parentage and divorce law in the EU Member States

1. The number of marriages between partners from different EU countries is increasing. All MemberStates have different marriage and family laws which have not yet been mutually recognized and whichconsiderably inhibit the freedom of movement of EU citizens. In Germany a marriage is not possible, forexample, unless a certificate of descent is presented. A French bride can, however, only obtain a certificateof origin in her home country. There is no EU provision which recognizes this document as equivalent andas a result an enormous amount of bureaucracy must be dealt with. How has the Commission sought to


deal with the problem of non-uniform marriage and family legislation up to now? What results have beenachieved?

2. The divorces of two EU citizens are also not recognized by other Member States. A German-Italiancouple divorced in German is not automatically considered to be divorced in Italy. Children of a coupleirrevocably bear the name of the father, which can cause problems if the child lives with the mother andthe mother uses her maiden name, i.e. a different name from that of the child. What possibilities does theCommission see to achieve mutual recognition of the differing legal situations in the Member States?

3. Registrars often lack knowledge about the legal situation in another Member State. Europeanregistrars have pointed out the great need for expertise in this field. To what extent does the Commissionconsider that the drawing up of an EU information brochure and the introduction of specific furthertraining possibilities would be useful? Is the Commission prepared to provide financial support for suchoptions?


(8 October 1998)

1. The Commission has not taken any initiative with regard to substantive law applicable to marriageand the family. With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission will be able to takeany action which might be required on the matter.

2. With regard to the recognition of divorces granted in another Member State, the Council (Justice andHome Affairs) recently adopted a Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement ofJudgments in Matrimonial Matters (Brussels II Convention). This Convention, which must still be ratifiedby the Member States, provides that a decision granting a divorce in one Member State can be recorded inthe civil-status records of another Member State without the need to follow any procedure. ThisConvention does not include any provision with regard to whether the children should bear the father’sor the mother’s name. This matter is governed by the private international law of the trial court.

3. It is for the Member States to ensure that registrars are supplied with the appropriate information.Nevertheless the Commission would recall that under the Grotius programme it can provide financialassistance for projects submitted to it by law professionals with a view to improving their knowledge ofthe legal and judicial culture of other Member States.


by Monica Baldi (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Schengen Agreement and airport safety

In view of the Schengen Agreement and the abolition of systematic customs checks within the SingleMarket, how does the Commission consider that an adequate level of safety for citizens at airports can beensured, especially with reduced staffing levels and high volumes of traffic, as at Florence airport?

Can the Commission check or take steps to ensure that the applicable safety regulations are beingcomplied with?



(23 October 1998)

The Commission has always taken the view that the abolition of controls on persons and goods at internalfrontiers as provided for by Article 7a of the EC Treaty concerns only the elimination of frontier controls,in other words controls which are carried out in connection with or on the occasion of the crossing of aninternal frontier. On the other hand, checks carried out by Member States or by carriers duringembarkation on aircraft or ships with a view to ensuring the safety and security of individuals andproperty during transport should not be affected by the creation of an area without internal frontiers. Suchchecks are carried out at airports regardless of whether the flight is domestic, intra-Community orinternational.

Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3925/91 of 19 December 1991 concerning the elimination ofcontrols and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Communityflight and the baggage of persons making an intra-Community sea crossing (1) thus provides that ‘thisRegulation shall apply without prejudice to the safety and security checks carried out on baggage by theauthorities of the Member States, port or airport authorities or carriers’. In its proposal for a CouncilDirective on the elimination of controls on persons crossing internal frontiers (2), the Commission hasfollowed the same approach.

The Commission does not have any evidence suggesting that the creation of a frontier-free area has led tolower standards of safety and security in air or sea transport.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991.(2) OJ C 289, 31.10.1995.


by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Brenner toll 1

The Austrian Federal Government plans to submit to the Commission two compromise proposals on tollcharges for the Brenner motorway which are intended to persuade the Commission to withdraw thecomplaint against Austria in the European Court of Justice.

1. Is Variant 1, which provides that for each lorry journey on the Lower Inn Valley motorway a toll ofATS 150 is to be levied, with this sum then being deducted from the current Brenner toll, suitable topersuade the Commission to withdraw its complaint against Austria?

2. Is Variant 2, under which the current Brenner toll will be reduced by ATS 80 to ATS 1070 suitable topersuade the Commission to withdraw its complaint against Austria?


by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Brenner toll 2

The Commission has brought a complaint in the European Court of Justice for infringement of the roadpricing directive because of tolls imposed on the Brenner motorway.


1. On what legal basis has this complaint been made?

2. Is there a possibility that the Commission will withdraw the complaint?

3. If so, what conditions would Austria have to meet for the Commission to withdraw its complaint?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2326/98 and E-2327/98

given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No 1764/98 byMr. Konrad (1).

If the Commission finds that Austria has taken measures to put an end to the infringement of CouncilDirective 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehiclesused for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures (2), itcould consider discontinuing the proceedings against Austria. This possibility remains, however, at thediscretion of the Commission which will at all times work on the basis of the facts relevant to the case.

The Commission noted with interest the two latest Austrian proposals on restructuring of the Brenner tollswhich aim to achieve progress in the Council discussions about the revision of Directive 93/89/EEC.These latest Austrian proposals have not been submitted within the framework of the Brenner casepending before the Court.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 80.(2) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.


by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland

Can the Commission provide figures giving details of payments from the Structural Funds by region inIreland over the last three years and is the Commission convinced that, given the economic differencesbetween the regions in Ireland, a reasonable share-out has taken place?


(10 September 1998)

It should be recalled that Ireland is considered to be a single region for the purposes of cohesion policy.There is a single Community support framework administered at central government level. However, theCommission has in recent years encouraged more regional involvement in the disbursement of thestructural funds in Ireland. This is evidenced by the establishment, in 1994, of the eight regionalauthorities. Arising from this development, regional statistics are being refined and additional statisticsdeveloped to better assess the level of development of the eight regions. One useful statistic emergingfrom this process is the level of structural funds spending in the individual regions. Reliable statistical datafor 1994 and 1995 are now available and are reproduced below.


Table of total expenditure(including national matching funds)

(million IR£)

Expenditure 1994 Expenditure 1995

Border 122,49 188,51West 117,08 171,26Mid-West 93,50 117,05South-West 127,19 197,37South-East 90,48 118,01Midlands 57,27 82,08Mid-East 84,56 90,09Dublin 248,17 292,34

TOTAL 940,73 1256,70

The forecast regional spread of expenditure over the whole of the current 1994-1999 structural fundsprogramming period is shown below.

Table of expenditure by region(1994-1999)

Expenditure(mio IR£)

% Share Population Per capita(IR£)

Border 1 325,91 15,31 406 444 3 262,22West 1 050,88 12,14 351 874 2 986,52Mid-West 847,92 9,79 316 875 2 675,88South-West 1 256,68 14,51 546 209 2 300,73South-East 853,77 9,86 391 046 2 183,30Midlands 632,24 7,30 205 252 3 080,31Mid-East 540,32 6,24 346 669 1 558,60Dublin 2 150,78 24,84 1 056 666 2 035,44

TOTAL 8 658,50 100,00 3 621 035 2 391,17

The Commission considers that this regional allocation is reasonable, taking account inter alia of the factthat transport and telecommunications infrastructure improvements in one region also bring benefits toother regions. Account should also be taken of the interventions of the cohesion fund.


by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Safety of agricultural vehicles

Following a tragic accident in the West Flanders commune of Kortrijk-Heule in which a cyclist was runover by a trailer being pulled by a tractor, I would like to ask the Commission the following questions:

Although the tractor was equipped as required by the regulations with a number of rear-view mirrors, thecyclist was not visible to the driver. According to experts, blind spots such as this can only be avoided ifthere is a second person on board the tractor or if structural adjustments are made in the form of theaddition of an opening at the bottom of the door to provide greater visibility.

Have studies already been carried out to determine whether it would be feasible to require such structuraladjustments to be made and have any steps been taken on this matter?



(24 September 1998)

The Commission is very anxious to inform the Honourable Member that it also deplores the tragicaccident in the Kortrijk/Heule district that caused the death of a cyclist who had been run over by a trailerbeing pulled by a farm tractor.

The Honourable Member must realise that the Commission is highly attentive to the problems raised bythe various aspects of safety.

In order to avoid that type of accident the Commission felt it necessary to amend Council Directive74/346/EEC (1) on rear-view mirrors fitted to agricultural or forestry tractors. Those amendments wereadopted on 8 June 1998 (Directive 90/40/EC) (2) and take account of the range of rear-view mirrors stillused and of the conditions under which these are adjusted by the driver. These changes thus meet the wishexpressed by the Honourable Member as regards improvements to the lateral field of vision from tractors.

However, the Commission must confirm that the conditions under which these devices are used areequally decisive. Indeed, rear-view mirrors that have been component type approved and fitted inaccordance with Community requirements and must be correctly adjusted by the driver of the vehicle if itsfield of view is to cover all situations and does not include any blind spot, account here being taken of anyimplements attached to the tractor and of its trailer loading.

(1) OJ L 191, 15.7.1974.(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.


by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo

Following the visit to Togo by observers from the EU, the EU Presidency expressed deep concern aboutthe legitimacy of the Presidential elections held in that country. As the European Union has serious doubtsabout the credibility of the election results announced by the Togolese Minister of the Interior on 24 June,what action is the Council taking to ensure democracy in Togo?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The report of EU observers to the Presidential elections in Togo on 21 June 1998 identified serious flawsand questioned their validity. The Togolese opposition maintains that its candidate, Mr Gilchrist Olympio,won the elections and has refused to accept the legitimacy of President Eyadema after the expiry of hisprevious mandate on 25 August 1998.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the EU Council is endeavouring to promote democracy in Togo. TheEU expressed its disappointment at the way the elections had been conducted in a declaration on 26 June1998. As a further mark of EU dissatisfaction with the fashion in which the elections had been held, EUAmbassadors were instructed not to attend the inauguration ceremony of President Eyadema on 26 July.

The Council on 13 July 1998 approved the text of a letter to the Government of Togo requestingconsultations with the Togolese Government on the basis of Article 366a of the revised Lomé IVConvention. The consultations were held in Brussels on 30 July. The Togolese delegation was led byPrime Minister, Mr Kwassi Klutse. The explanations offered by Togo differed considerably from theassessments of the EU observers’ mission. The EU has decided to consider them in detail. It will take a


decision in the light of these considerations and of the evolution of the democratic process in Togo onwhether to pursue these consultations. Since 1993, EU development cooperation with Togo has beenpartially suspended.

In the meantime the Council will continue to follow closely the political situation and do everything in itspower to encourage the development of democracy in Togo.



(27 July 1998)

Subject: Foreign prisoners held in French jails under Article 752

In France, convicted drug-traffickers must pay the street value of the drugs in their possession or, if thefine is over FF 500 000, must serve up to another two years in addition to their basic sentence. During thattime, foreign nationals are eligible neither for transfer to their home country nor for parole.

Would the Commission support proposals to allow prisoners from the EU to serve these last two years oftheir sentence in the Member State of origin?


(16 September 1998)

Arrangements for the transfer of sentenced persons between the Member States are primarily governed bythe Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons of 21 March 1983.

The transfer of a person under this convention is subject to a number of conditions including the consentof the person concerned and the agreement of the sentencing state and the state to which the person is to betransferred. In accordance with the Convention the person concerned must be informed about theConvention by the sentencing state and may make known to either stated his interest in being transferred.It is possible for either state to apply for the transfer to take place.

Within the Union judicial co-operation is a matter of common interest in accordance with Title VI of theTreaty on the European Union. According to these provisions as they currently stand, the Commission isnot in a position to take action in this field, but such an initiative must come from the Member States.


by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Reform of the FIFG and assistance for joint ventures

The restructuring of the fisheries sector through the setting-up of joint ventures under the current FIFG hasproved highly effective in terms of job- and wealth-creation in the European Union.


In Spain there are 164 vessels belonging to joint ventures, which directly provide a total of 1912 jobs.Furthermore, 93,5% of these jobs are concentrated in Objective 1 regions (Galicia and Andalusia), whichdemonstrates the contribution made to economic and social cohesion in the Community. Of the498 000 tonnes of fresh and frozen fish entering the Spanish port of Vigo (the world’s major port inthis respect) in 1997, 30% (150 000) came from joint ventures. Likewise, 50% of Spain’s annual importsof frozen fish come from joint ventures (250 000 tonnes).

If we have experienced all these beneficial effects in Spain, it is to be expected that other Member Stateshave benefited in a similar way. This is an extremely effective structural measure whose continuity shouldbe guaranteed in the new programming framework for the period 2000-2006.

It is therefore astonishing that the proposal for legislation to implement Agenda 2000 submitted by theCommission on 18 March 1998 (COM(98) 131 final) contains a draft regulation on structural measures inthe fisheries sector (1) which makes no reference to joint ventures or any other measure, producing asituation of total uncertainty. It should be borne in mind that the above proposal for a regulation repealsand replaces the regulation currently in force, Council Regulation (EEC) 2080/93 (2) of 20 July 1993,Articles 2 and 3 of which list all the structural measures which may be applied to the fisheries sector,including joint ventures.

Can the Commission say whether joint ventures will continue to figure among the structural measuresfinanced by the FIFG in the period 2000-2006?

If not, can the Commission state the reasons on which the proposal to abolish such funding is based?

Finally, how does the Commission explain the fact that a proposal for a regulation on structural measuresin the fisheries sector makes no reference to any structural measure in the fisheries sector?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 44.(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

The Commission has taken careful note of the information provided by the Honourable Member withregard to the importance of joint ventures in the Spanish fisheries sector.

With regard to form, it should be pointed out that the 1998 proposals for legislation on structural measuresin the fisheries sector are to be adopted in two separate phases, as in 1993: first, a basic regulationrepresenting the ‘structural package’ and establishing a link between economic and social cohesion policyand structural measures in the fisheries sector, and second an implementing regulation, based on Article 43of the Treaty which is the legal base of the common fisheries policy, specifying the exact scope ofstructural measures in the fisheries sector.

This procedure was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal for a Regulationon structural measures in the fisheries sector (1) (first phase).

With regard to substance, the Commission will adopt the proposal for an implementing regulation, onwhich Parliament will be called to give an opinion, in good time (second phase).

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998.



by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Failure to clarify conditions applicable to cabotage

Is the Commission aware that since the introduction of limited cabotage, an inventory of the conditionssubject to which cabotage may be authorised has been made only once?

Does the Commission further realise that new countries have since acceded to the Union and that nogeneral review of the relevant conditions has ever been provided for those countries?

Has Commission any plans to draw up and publish a comprehensive review outlining the relevantconditions? If so, when? If not, why not?


(6 October 1998)

Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (1) states that (save asprovided in Community regulations) regulations and administrative provisions in force in the ‘host’Member State apply in five areas that are enumerated in the Regulation. These five areas are rates andconditions governing the transport contract, weights and dimensions of road vehicles, requirementsrelating to the carriage of certain categories of goods, driving and rest time, and value added tax (VAT) ontransport services.

The Commission is aware that a number of national organisations produce, for their own members,extensive inventories of national rules in other countries. For example, an inventory produced byTransport en Logistiek Nederland covers 49 countries in its 1998 edition.

It would not be appropriate for the Commission to create and update a manual of the national legislationapplicable in all these areas, but it may be useful for an international organisation of road hauliers tocoordinate such work so as to avoid duplication.

(1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.


by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL)and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Radiation leak in Algeciras (Spain)

In June 1998 it emerged that there had been a radiation leak at the Acerinox plant in Algeciras, in theSpanish province of Cadiz. The Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (Nuclear Safety Council) was told that acaesium 137 isotope with a half-life of 30 years which can penetrate the muscular system had becomevolatile during the smelting of scrap metal in which the radioactive substance was lodged. Thecontaminated scrap metal was placed in the plant’s smelting furnace and radioactivity passed into theatmosphere and the slag, causing a radiation leak which may well have been responsible for the high levelsof caesium 137 recorded in France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy between 25 May and 2 June 1998.

Traces of caesium 137 had also been found at two waste treatment plants to which the steelworks had beensending its waste to be fully detoxified. Both plants have since been shut down and sealed off, and its staffdenied access to contaminated areas.


Bearing in mind that Acerinox was fined in October 1997 for failing to report the arrival of a lorry carryingradioactive scrap metal at its plant, and in the light of suspicions that Spain has breached the internationalprotocol on nuclear accidents by not providing immediate notification of the leak:

1. Does the Commission intend to adopt the measures required to compile and check data, and if need beadopt the necessary legal measures?

2. What measures will the Commission take to put a stop to radioactive contamination caused bycaesium 137?

3. Can the Commission look into whether the basic standards for health protection within the EU havebeen met, in keeping with Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty and Council Directives 80/836/Euratom (1) and 84/467/Euratom (2) amending the Directives laying down the basic safety standardsfor the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation?

4. Can the Commission say how it is monitoring the situation?

(1) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980, p. 1.(2) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984, p. 4.


(21 September 1998)

At the end of May 1998, and the beginning of June a temporary but significant increase of Caesium-137concentrations in air was detected in Italy, South-East France, and in Switzerland. The Commissionprogressively assembled the information from those concerned. This phenomenon was notified, as aprecautionary measure, through the Community and International atomic energy agency communicationssystems to their respective national contact points on 11 June 1998, although the measured levels did notrepresent any threat to public health. The two systems forwarded subsequent complementary informationas it was received. No Community Member State nor the Commission was in fact bound to issue anotification as no ‘measures of a wide-spread nature to protect the general public’ had been implemented,which is the criterion set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 87/600/Euratom (1) on Communityarrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency.

The Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish authorities since the release of contamina-tion from the Acerinox plant was first notified. In July the Commission received a copy of an interimreport of the Consejo de seguridad nuclear (CSN) to the Spanish Parliament. A full report elaborated bythe CSN was received in mid-August and the content is currently being carefully analysed. There is noevidence that the Community basic safety standards for the protection of the general public and workersagainst the dangers of ionizing radiation have been infringed. For the workers involved in the incident, theSpanish authorities have estimated a maximum dose corresponding to 8 % of the annual limit relevant forthe general public.

The levels of contamination in the environment do not represent any threat to public health and thereforeno countermeasures have been implemented. The cleaning and decontamination of the treatment plants towhich the steelworks had been sending its waste were expected to be completed before the monthof September.

Following a request by the Parliament’s environment committee, detailed information was transmitted toits chairman on 4 August 1998. As stated in that context, reflection is underway within the Commission onpossible initiatives to prevent such events from occurring in future.

(1) OJ L 371, 30.12.1987.



by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland and road safety

In Finland it is compulsory to use winter tyres, and accordingly every vehicle registered in Finland mustduring the winter months use either studded tyres or non-studded friction tyres for winter driving.However, Finland has no right to prevent vehicles arriving in Finland without winter tyres during theperiod when these are compulsory if they are registered in a country other than Finland. HoweverGermany, for example, is allowed to prevent a Finnish-registered car from entering Germany with studdedtyres.

Should not such prohibitions and freedoms be applied uniformly throughout the EU, applying to allcountries? Each country should have the right to enact road safety provisions and to insist that all EUnationals travelling on its territory comply with those provisions. How does the Commission justify thecurrent discrimination between the Member States?


(6 October 1998)

The compulsory use of winter tyres in Finland for safety reasons under specific climatic conditions is amatter of national competence. It is imposed, as the Honourable Member says, on all road users, regardlessof the Member State of registration of the motor vehicle and does not, therefore, constitute a case ofdiscrimination. In this context it should be mentioned that in some areas in other Member States there arerequirements for all motor vehicles to use snow chains for safety reasons.

Forbidding winter tyres with studs on roads also falls under the competence of the national authorityresponsible for the roads. The reason for this prohibition is the excessive wear of roads caused by suchtyres.


by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Financial transactions carried out by Mr Karadzic

According to a report which appeared in the Banja Luka weekly Nezavisne Novine and which was takenup by the Corriere della Sera of 22 June 1998, DM 17 million (the equivalent of Lire 17 billion) weretransferred in March 1997 from the National Bank of the Republika Srpska (the Serb Republic) to theNuova Banca di Credito di Trieste (also known under the Slovene name of Trzaska Kreditna Banka); thistransfer of funds seems to have been carried out by henchmen of the war criminal Radovan Karadzicshortly before they were obliged to hand over the government of the Serb Republic to the ‘moderates’ ofthe current Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik. The enormous capital sum transferred is assumed to consisteither of the proceeds of the looting carried out by the Bosnian Serbs in the course of their ‘ethniccleansing’ drive or of funds misappropriated from the Serb Republic.

− what information can the Council obtain concerning the activities of the Liechtenstein-basedcompany Sarnos Establishment, which seems to be used by the ‘Karadzic clan’ as a cover for capitaltransfers?

− what information can the Council obtain concerning the activities of the Rome-based Internationalinstitute for political and economic research on cooperation and development (Ispeco), headed byMr Gianfranco Oliverio, which appears to have emerged in June 1995 as a political and economicpressure group lobbying on behalf of Radovan Karadzic in Italy?


− what action does the Council intend to take to prevent, in future, any direct or indirect collusion orconnivance with the war criminal Radovan Karadzic and to strengthen the European institutions’cooperation with the ad hoc Tribunal dealing with war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for having drawn its attention to this matter. The Councilregrets that, due to the nature of the question, it cannot provide the information requested. But the Councilhas handed over the text of the Honourable Member’s question to the authorities of Italy and Liechtensteinwho are looking into the questions raised.

As concerns the strengthening of the European institutions’ cooperation with the International CriminalTribunal for former Yugoslavia, the Council would like to point out that cooperation with ICTY is firstand foremost the responsibility of individual member States. Nevertheless, the Council has always put itspolitical support behind the work of ICTY and has made cooperation with the tribunal an important aspectfor assessing compliance by the successor states of former Yugoslavia with the Dayton Peace Accords.


by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Plans to halve Britain’s nuclear strength

1. Has the Council noted the British Government’s plans to halve the nuclear strength of its armedforces?

2. Does the Council not consider it necessary for the British Government to discuss such sweepingmeasures with its NATO and EU partners before taking a decision?

3. Is the Council prepared to request the British Government to proceed to a reduction in the number ofits nuclear warheads only when the following conditions are satisfied:

a) The coherence of the strike power of European defence is not undermined by the reduction in thenumber of British warheads, at the very time when many EU Member States are cutting back ondefence;

b) Russia has ratified the START Treaty;

c) India and Pakistan sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, national measures pertaining to defence are not discussedin the Council.


by Guido Podestà (PPE) to the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Subject: Trans-European transport networks: opening of Malpensa airport

The appeals made by a number of European airlines about the transfer of air traffic from Linate toMalpensa could imply that there is a prejudice against the Lombard airport despite the fact that it forms


part of the 14 priority projects, that it will soon be opened and that its situation in Europe makes it ofstrategic importance in North/South routes also in the light of the recent agreement between Alitalia andKLM. Given that so far there have been no additional delays in completing the infrastructures for the newairport, does the Commission not think that:

1. the problems raised by some European airlines could constructively be resolved by graduallytransferring air traffic from Linate to Malpensa without prejudice to the fact that Malpensa shouldsoon become a real European hub, as determined by the European Council in Essen?

2. the transfer of air traffic from Linate to Malpensa will be beneficial for all European airlines sinceLinate is at saturation point and no longer able to satisfy demand?

3. a number of statements about Alitalia’s monopoly on the Linate-Fiumicino route are completelyunjustified since, as from 25 October 1998, Alitalia will operate 492 flights a week between Rome andMilan and 4 other companies will be able to offer a good 672?

4. any move it makes substantially to change the position it has so far maintained as regards the transferof air traffic from Linate to Malpensa with the exception of the Milan-Rome route would come ratherlate and thus be detrimental to free competition between airlines?


(1 October 1998)

The Commission fully supports the substantial transfer of traffic from Linate airport to Malpensa, not leastbecause it is necessary in order to ensure the success of the Malpensa hub.

Any transfer must, however, be in compliance with Community law, in particular the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality in relation to the stated objective. The creation of the Malpensa hubwill allow for the resolution of congestion problems that currently affect Linate airport (which handled14 million passengers in 1997 against an optimal capacity limited to 8 million). The Malpensa hub willalso provide users in Milan and the neighbouring areas with air services that are better suited to demand,especially through the development of direct intercontinental routes.

The transfer of traffic from Linate to Malpensa will have positive consequences for air carriers since theywill benefit from modern airport infrastructure that is capable of dealing with the envisaged traffic growthover the coming years. However, to achieve this Malpensa must have land transport infrastructure that willprovide adequate access. That infrastructure is not yet in place. This led the Commission to adopt adecision declaring the traffic distribution rules incompatible with Community law on 16 September.

The Commission has not received any complaint relating to conduct by Alitalia in contravention ofcompetition rules on the Milan-Rome route (abuse of dominant position). While Alitalia obviously has astrong position on the Milan-Rome route because of its high market share and connections on either side,this falls short of a monopoly because the route is open to all Community carriers by virtue of theprinciples set out in Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community aircarriers to intra-Community air routes (1). Several are currently operating in competition with Alitalia.

While the Italian authorities have informed the Commission of the criteria relating to these rules, theCommission was not informed of the date envisaged for the application of these rules (25 October 1998)until the day following the adoption of the decree that fixed this date. Consequently, the Commissioncould not take a position at an earlier opportunity.

Moreover, it is important to emphasise that the Commission contacted the Italian authorities very shortlyafter it received the first complaints i.e. in early March 1998.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.




(27 July 1998)

Subject: Taxation on passenger vehicles imported into Greece

With a view to harmonizing the provisions governing tax exemptions on the definitive import of personalgoods granted to various categories of person who transfer their normal place of residence from a non-EUcountry, the Republic of Greece has incorporated into its national law the provisions of Directive83/181 (1) and Regulation 918/83 (2).

Through Article 6, Paragraph 13, of Law No 2459/97 the Greek Republic abolished as from 1 January1997 the tax exemption on the import of motor vehicles − alone among personal effects − but only forGreek civil servants, even if the motor vehicle purchased by them had been registered and driven in a non-EU country, according to the general conditions of taxation obtaining therein (including the provisions setout in international conventions and agreements).

Will the Commission say:

1. Have the provisions of Directive 83/181 and Regulation 918/83 remained in force after 1 January1993?

2. If so, does Greece have the right to exclude from the scope of this legislation Greek civil servants who,at their request have worked and or are working in a non-EU country, having transferred all theirpersonal and professional activities there for a period of at least 185 days per calendar year?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 38.(2) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1.


(27 October 1998)

1. Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community forcertain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another and CouncilRegulation (EEC) 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs dutyare still in force as regards the subject raised by the Honourable Member.

2. As to whether or not Greece has the right under this legislation to stop officials from itsadministration who have worked or are working in a non-EU country from benefiting from relief incases in which they have transferred all their personal and professional activities to that non-EU countryfor at least 185 days per calendar year, this depends essentially on whether the officials concerned havetransferred their normal place of residence to that country. If they have done so, and subsequently transferit back to Greece, they have the right to the tax exemptions and customs duty relief provided for in thelegislation cited in paragraph 1. On the other hand, if they are considered to be on mission in the non-EUcountry concerned, their normal place of residence continues to be in Greece during the period of theirmission, and they do not therefore have the right to customs duty relief under Community law.

The significance of the ‘normal place of residence’ is set out in Article 7 of Directive 83/182/EEC (1) and(in identical terms) in Article 6 of Directive 83/183/EEC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. We wouldrefer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Question E-183/98 (2)and Mr Sjöstedt’s oral question H-177/98, put during question time at the March II 1998 part-session ofParliament (3).

The upshot of Court of Justice interpretation is that ‘normal place of residence’ is determined by a numberof legal and factual factors, and that the question of whether there has been a transfer of normal place ofresidence in one direction or the other should therefore be judged on a case-by-case basis.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.(2) OJ C 323, 23.10.1998.(3) Debates of the European Parliament (March II 1998).



by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete

At the beginning of July Crete experienced an unprecedented heatwave (the temperature exceeded40 degrees) which greatly damaged viticulture (especially in the prefecture of Irakleion) and stock-breeding. In particular, production of table grapes over a very large area and hundreds of hectares ofsultana vineyards were destroyed. As far as stockbreeding is concerned, the heatwave mainly affectedpoultry, pigs, domestic animals and apiculture. Will the Commission say whether it considers that there isany scope for granting aid to the stricken agricultural sectors in Crete?



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Disastrous effects on agriculture caused by heat wave in Crete

At the beginning of July, Crete was hit by an unprecedented heat wave (with temperatures over 40 degrees)which wrought havoc among vineyards (especially in the Heraklion region) and stockfarming. Inparticular, table grape vines over a huge area and hundreds of hectares of sultana production weredestroyed. As regards livestock, the heat wave mainly affected poultry, piglets and domestic animals aswell as bee-keeping. In view of this situation, does the Commission consider it possible to grant assistanceto the Cretan farmers affected by this disaster?


given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

The second subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) 411/97 of 3 March 1997 layingdown detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 as regards operationalprogrammes, operational funds and Community financial assistance (1) allows fruit and vegetableproducer organisations, in the event of a natural disaster, to use a theoretical value of marketed productionbased on the average yield during the three preceding years for calculating Community financialassistance to the operational fund. The Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation(EC) 20/98 of 7 January 1998 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 asregards aid to producer organisations granted preliminary recognition (2) contains a similar provision.

The Community legislation currently in force provides for two ways in which, at the Member State’sinstigation, a programme can be launched to help wine-growers replant drought- and heatwave-damagedvineyards. The first possibility is investment aid in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC)2741/89 of 11 September 1989 laying down criteria to apply under Article 14 of Council Regulation(EEC) 822/87 on national aid for the planting of wine-growing areas (3) (such aid must be notified inadvance to the Commission in compliance with Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty); the second possibility isaid to restore production potential through investment in replanting heatwave-damaged vines, fundedjointly by the Community under the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance andGuarantee Fund (EAGGF) (such aid must fall within Greece’s financial allocation for the currentprogramming period (1994-99) and comply with the relevant procedure laid down in the Objective 1Community support framework (CSF)). However, the aid must be granted in accordance with the specificrequirements stipulated by the respective measures referred to in the CSF, for example Council Regulation(EC) 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (4) (as regards


investment in agricultural holdings) or the specific measure to combat phylloxera in Crete, both of whichform part of the agriculture operational programme (OP) in the national section of the CSF.

Similarly, where livestock for breeding (poultry, pigs, bees, etc.) has been affected, national aid may begranted in accordance with the Community rules on State aid, subject to notification in compliance withArticle 93(3) of the EC Treaty. Structural aid funded jointly by the Community under the GuidanceSection of the EAGGF is also possible, subject to the conditions explained above, for example under thesame operational programme’s measure on restoring production potential lost through natural disasters −provided, of course, that the aid is likewise notified in compliance with Article 93(3) of the Treaty and thatit falls within the measure’s current financial allocation in the agriculture OP.

In the case of both vineyards and livestock, comprehensive and well-founded documentation proving theextent of the damage will have to be submitted to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 62, 4.3.1997.(2) OJ L 4, 8.1.1998.(3) OJ L 264, 12.9.1989.(4) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.


by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Parkinson’s disease and the EU’s Fifth R&D Framework Programme

In Europe, 650 000 families are currently affected by Parkinson’s disease, a figure which could rise to1,2 million by the year 2008. These alarming figures merely illustrate the increasing need for extraresources to finance scientific research programmes into Parkinson’s disease.

Could the Commission say what specific headings will be provided within the fifth R&D frameworkprogramme for the benefit of organisations involved in treating Parkinson’s disease? How much fundingwill be made available for those headings? Is the Commission planning to launch any specific initiativeoutside the fifth R&D framework programme which will concentrate on scientific research intoParkinson’s disease?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

In preparing for the fifth framework programme for research and technological development (RTD)(FP5) (1), the Commission has proposed to give priority to several research items that would enable directsupport for clinical and epidemiological research on Parkinson’s disease. As such, the Commission’sproposal for a specific programme for RTD (2) on ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’addresses Parkinson’s disease, its prevention and novel treatment by promoting, under the key action‘Ageing population’, research into age-related illnesses and health problems with high morbidity.

Efforts for improved understanding of Parkinson’s disease will also benefit from the RTD activities ofgeneric nature, where chronic diseases are addressed in general, and emphasis is laid on neurosciences andneurological disorders.


For the specific programme on ‘Quality of life and management of living resources’, the Commission hasproposed ECU 2 635 million, with an indicative percentage breakdown including 7,6% for the key action‘Ageing population’ and 20,6% for the RTD activities of a generic nature. In view of the divergentpositions of Council and the Parliament on the overall funding and the breakdown of FP5, the conciliationprocedure will have to determine the level of funding. The Commission will support all efforts to arrive ata satisfactory compromise.

No Community funded scientific research into Parkinson’s disease is foreseen outside the fifth frameworkprogramme.

(1) COM(97) 142 final.(2) OJ C 260, 18.8.1998.


by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Construction of high-speed rail links

It appears that some of the sections of the high-speed rail link which is currently being built in southernEurope will not be finished on time, in particular the Perpignan-Montpellier section. This could defeat theefforts which have been made along most of the route and will also prevent the area concerned fromenjoying the economic benefits to be derived from the existence of this major rail link.

Is the Commission planning to take any action to speed up the construction of the sections which arebehind schedule, so as to ensure that this major Community transport link is completed on time?


(12 October 1998)

The high speed train (HST) railway line linking Madrid-Barcelona to Perpignan and Montpellier, the so-called HST South, was identified by the Essen European Council as one of the 14 priority projects fordevelopment of the Trans-European networks (TENs) on which the Commission should concentrate itsefforts.

This project benefits from Community financial support through the Cohesion fund and the TEN-T budgetline. It is however true that, although the project is progressing quite well, notably on Spanish territory, thePerpignan-Montpellier section may be delayed and thereby temporarily reduce the overall benefits of thewhole project.

The Commission keeps in close contact with the French government in order to get precise information onthe construction timetable for this specific section. However, the timetable and all other relevant factorsremain the responsibility of the French authorities. The importance of the Perpignan-Montpelier link wasemphasised in the Report of the High Level Group on TENs Public Private Partnerships and, mostrecently, in the Commission’s report to the Cardiff European Council on progress on the 14 priorityprojects.

The Commission will continue its efforts to speed up the realisation of the entire project, from Madrid toMontpellier. By the end of 1998, Réseau Ferré de France, responsible for French national railwayinfrastructure, is expected to issue a plan setting out the new railway priorities in France, and theCommission will continue to emphasise, in this context, the importance of the High Speed Train South.




(30 July 1998)

Subject: Road transport − harmonisation of conditions of competition

The French Ministry of Transport tabled a ‘memorandum’ with the Commission on 19 November 1997asking for driving and rest times to be harmonised through the incorporation of times other than drivingtimes in Regulation 3820/85 (1).

Has the Commission considered these proposals? What are the current European rules on this matter?

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.


(16 October 1998)

On 19 November 1997, the French government submitted a memorandum to the Council for Europeanharmonisation of social rules in road transport. The memorandum made suggestions in three areas:regulations of all periods of activities in road transport particularly for drivers; the introduction ofobligatory professional training for all drivers; and a harmonisation of enforcement measures andpenalties.

The Commission took note of the suggestions and indeed is actively engaged in addressing all three areas.Firstly, in the absence of an agreement between the Social Partners on Working Time, the Commission isdrawing up its own proposals for Community-wide rules covering ‘mobile’ workers in road haulage. TheCommission also intends to propose to extend the Working Time Directive (93/104) to cover non-mobileworkers. Secondly, a Commission communication on driver training is in preparation. Thirdly, theCommission is gathering information from the Member States to form the basis of a report on theefficiency and effectiveness of enforcement levels and current penalties.


by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) and James Janssen van Raay (UPE) to the Council

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Suspension of payments from budget items devoted to organizations caring for the elderly

1. Is the Council of Ministers aware that the Commission decision of 10 July 1998 to suspend paymentsfrom some 40 budget items devoted to European cooperation in areas including care for the elderlyconstitutes a serious handicap for European NGOs which have requested subsidies?

2. Does the Council share my view that this suspension runs counter to the rules of sound financialmanagement?

3. What steps has the Council taken, as we approach 1999, the UN Year of the Elderly, to lift thatsuspension?

4. Does the Council realize that the decision to suspend payments is incompatible with the objective ofencouraging senior citizens to involve themselves in EU affairs and that it will, inter alia, sharply reducethe degree of interest of European senior citizens in the forthcoming European elections in June 1999?

5. Is the Council aware that the suspension of payments gives a totally false signal to the social servicesorganizations which work to improve the welfare of the elderly in Europe?


6. What measures is the Council prepared to take in order to lift the suspension and to create for theCommission, at the very earliest opportunity, the legal basis required for the appropriations set aside forthis purpose still to be made available, thereby ensuring the continuity of projects and networks?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The Judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May 1998 in CaseC-106/96 (United Kingdom v. Commission) gives a reminder of the Court’s earlier case-law which makesit clear that, ‘in the system of the Treaty, any implementation of expenditure by the Commission inprinciple presupposes, in addition to the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget, an act ofsecondary legislation (commonly called the ’basic act‘) from which the expenditure derives’ (Point 22 ofthe grounds of the Judgment, ECR 1998-5, p. I − 2753).

On 10 June 1998, the Commission, acting within the framework of its responsibilities under Article 205 ofthe Treaty, suspended the implementation of a number of the Union’s 1998 budget headings, which it feltshould be examined in the light of this principle. Following this examination, it decided to press aheadwith the implementation of most of the headings.

In this context, however, the implementation of heading B3-4116 ‘Cooperation with non-governmentalorganisations and associations to combat social exclusion’, to which the Honourable Members’ questionrefers, has not been resumed. This is because the Commission found that there was no basic act, which itaccepted was necessary, in this case.

The Council, aware of the importance of Community policies for Union citizens, considered at its meetingon 17 July 1998 that the Commission could, in compliance with Community law as re-affirmed by theCourt, continue without delay the implementation for 1998 of measures recognised as being politicallysensitive, such as measures to combat violence against children, adolescents and women, action relating toillegal and harmful content on the Internet, support for and monitoring of electoral processes, and action inthe field of human rights and democracy.

At that meeting the Council also agreed, with European Parliament and Commission representatives, on aninterinstitutional agreement signed by the representatives of the three institutions on 13 October 1998 onlegal bases and implementation of the budget under which, in the light of the abovementioned Court ofJustice judgment of 12 May 1998, arrangements for cooperation between the three institutions would bemade by common agreement in order to improve the legislative procedure and the budget procedure, sothat the Commission would be fully able to implement Community expenditure.

The Council also undertook, with the Parliament, in the case of budget headings for which a basic act hadbeen proposed but not yet adopted, to endeavour to speed up the legislative procedures under way andcomplete them as soon as possible. That commitment resulted in the adoption on 17 July 1998 of CouncilRegulation (EC) 1658/98 on co-financing operations with European non-governmental developmentorganisations (NGOs) in fields of interest to developing countries (1).

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 1.


by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Sea turtle

The European Communities (EC) made a third party submission to the World Trade Organisation (WTO)dispute between the United States (US), India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand concerning the US importrestrictions on shrimp obtained using fishing methods likely to cause mortality to endangered species ofsea turtle. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding also entitles the EC to make a public explanationof its position.


Will the Commission now provide such an explanation, in particular, in order to clarify:

1. Why the EC intervened in this dispute?

2. How the EC intervention, which opposes the US embargo, can succeed without being detrimental tothe species of endangered sea turtle, which are listed in Appendix I of the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species (CITES) − a multilateral agreement to which the EC is also a party?

3. Why for the purposes of the WTO general exceptions (Article XX(g)), the EC proposed that it may beappropriate to define ‘an exhaustible natural resource’ as those species protected under the BonnConvention or listed in CITES Appendix 1 (but not Appendices 2 or 3)?

4. The extent to which it is satisfied with the Dispute Panel’s finding against the US?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

1. and 2. By intervening as a third party in the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case, the Commission, on behalf of theCommunity, aimed at influencing the evolution of case law on General agreement on tariffs and trade(GATT) Article XX in a manner consistent with the Community’s policy line on trade and environment, asreflected, in particular, in the Commission communication of February 1996 (1).

The Community third party submissions to the panel and to the appellate body are based on the premisethat international co-operation, rather than unilateral action, is the most effective and least trade-disruptivemeans to address global and transboundary environmental problems. Accordingly, the appropriate wayfor World trade organisation (WTO) members to promote the preservation of globally shared environ-mental resources, including migratory species, is to come to an internationally agreed solution. This isfully consistent with principle 12 of the Rio Declaration on environment and development.

Moreover, the Community has not excluded the possibility for a WTO member to adopt unilateral trademeasures aimed at protecting global environmental resources. However, such a possibility should besubject to certain requirements. In particular, unilateral trade measures would only be acceptable ifgenuine efforts to develop internationally agreed solutions had previously been made. This is afundamental issue in the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case since the United States could not demonstrate that theyeffectively tried to promote conservation of marine turtles through co-operative channels beforeunilaterally enforcing trade restrictions.

The Commission is convinced that an interpretation of GATT Article XX along the lines suggested by theCommunity would contribute significantly to achieving a mutually supportive relationship between tradeliberalisation and environmental protection objectives. In the first place, the role of co-operativemechanisms as the main instrument to address global and transboundary environmental problems wouldbe clearly recognised in the WTO. Secondly, such an interpretation would provide a strong incentive toachieve broader participation in multilateral environmental agreements.

3. The Honourable Member’s question concerning the interpretation of GATT Article XX (g) seems tobe based on a misunderstanding. In its third party submission to the panel, the Community invoked theinterpretative criteria developed in previous case law (to reject a narrow interpretation according to whichonly non-living resources or species of a commercial value should be considered as ‘exhaustible naturalresources’ under this provision). The Commission is, therefore, of the view that, in principle, the notion of‘exhaustible natural resources’ in GATT Article XX (g) encompasses all species of fauna and flora, andcertainly all species listed in Appendices I, II and III of CITES.


4. The Community is of the opinion that this ruling is likely to enhance the debate on the wider tradeand environment relationship in theWTO committee on trade and environment, where the Community hasconsistently argued that multilaterally agreed measures should benefit from a preferential treatmentvis-à-vis WTO rules. Some of the arguments found in the panel report would however require somefurther clarification by the appellate body.

The Commission believes that the above considerations demonstrate that the Community intervention inthis case has been guided by a genuine interest in devising effective solutions to develop a moreharmonious relationship between commercial and environmental concerns and to preserve the scope foraccommodating trade-related environmental measures in the WTO.

(1) COM(96) 54 final.


by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro

It was recently reported in the Portuguese media that the Commission had rejected co-financing under theCohesion Fund for the construction of quays at the mouth of the river Douro. It was also revealed that theCommission had rejected such co-funding because the project did not comply with the priorities definedby the Cohesion Fund. Can the Commission provide information on the following:

1. When did the Portuguese Government submit an application to the Cohesion Fund for the project toconstruct quays at the mouth of the river Douro?

2. Given that an international river would be made navigable through this project, what is theCommission’s justification for considering that the project does not comply with the priorities ofthe Cohesion Fund?


(29 September 1998)

The request for aid concerning the project covering work in the estuary of the Douro river was submittedto the Commission on 5 November 1996.

The project in question, which was analysed carefully by the Commission, was not considered as a prioritybecause the impact on the activities of the port of Leixões was marginal and its economic justification wasinsufficiently established. The Douro river does not form part of the trans-European transport network andprojects connected with its navigability are not therefore eligible under the Cohesion Fund.


by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Anti-dumping tariffs for steel producers

I am very grateful for the answer of 11 June 1998 (P-1606/98) (1). Since the answer relates to measuresalready taken for stainless steel screws, I am obliged to repeat my question to the Commission and pointout that it concerns steel screws in general.

1. Is the Commission planning to take such measures?

2. If so, how high will these tariffs be per tonne?


3. When is an anti-dumping tariff on the products referred to above likely to be introduced?

4. Does the measure only concern steel screws, or will other steel products also be affected?

5. Will all steel producers in the Far East be affected by the tariff policy?

6. If not, to which producers is this anti-dumping arrangement to apply?

7. If the Commission sets different tariff rates, how will it calculate them?

8. How long is the Commission planning to maintain such an arrangement?

9. Through what channel and when at the earliest can the enterprises affected by the measure obtaininformation on the Commission’s thoughts in this matter?

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 54.


(18 September 1998)

1. The Commission generally does not open anti-dumping proceedings on its own initiative, butanalyses a complaint lodged by Community producers injured by dumped imports.

2. No statement about the potential amount and type of duties can be made before the end of aninvestigation.

3. Pursuant to Article 7(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 of22 December 1995 (1)) provisional duties are imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation ofproceedings, but no later than nine months from the initiation of proceedings if the preconditions formeasures are met.

4. The definition of the product concerned in proceedings depends on the complaint. The Communityindustry may lodge a complaint with regard to other products.

5. and 6. The definition of the countries and the exporting producers against which proceedings areinitiated depends on the complaint and can be changed by the Commission on its own initiative.

7. The duties imposed on the co-operating producers depend on the calculation of their individualdumping and injury margins.

8. Definitive duties generally remain in force for five years, unless a review shows that the expiry ofmeasures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

9. Under Article 5(5) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, the Commission cannot provide anyinformation concerning complaints unless a decision has been made to open an investigation.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.



(30 July 1998)

Subject: The European Parliament and Parkinson’s disease

What initiatives have been undertaken and how much funding has been made available by the EuropeanUnion for the purpose of studying, combating and relieving the suffering caused by Parkinson’s disease?


Has the Commission any plans for a programme to meet the needs arising from the treatment and theeffects of Parkinson’s disease?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission has supported activities on neurodegenerative disorders and informal carers since 1995.However, so far no project presented on Parkinson’s disease has met the criteria required for financialsupport. The European Parkinson’s Disease Association has received financial support from theprogramme on integration of disabled people into the labour market, in order to analyse the needs ofpeople and their families living with this disease and to find the appropriate response.

The new ‘paving’ communication on the development of public health policy (1) proposes a move awayfrom the disease-specific approach towards a more horizontal approach to public health. However, Article152 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states clearly that the way the Member States organise and deliver theirhealth care systems is the responsibility of the Member States.

Research into Parkinson’s disease has always had a place in the Community¢s biomedical researchprogrammes (Biomed). It received funding under Biomed 1 and there are now four Biomed 2 projectsspecifically on the subject. These range from the genetic and molecular approach to treatment by cellulargrafting or functional neurosurgery. Some of these projects have already yielded significant results. Thedisease is also covered partially or indirectly by many other projects.

It should be given at least as much priority under topic 1 of the future fifth framework programme, and isin fact one of the few diseases expressly mentioned in the programme, in the key action on ‘ageing’. It alsoties in perfectly with at least two general actions: chronic and degenerative diseases, and neurosciences.

(1) COM(98) 230 final.


by Johann Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project

1. What is the situation regarding the ‘Corridoio Adriatico’ project, i.e. the waterway leading from theport of Trieste which is intended to link the Adriatic with other States bordering the Mediterranean andwith the Suez region?

2. How important does the Commission consider this project to be?

3. What is the current state of negotiations?


(7 October 1998)

1. The ‘Adriatic corridor’ project represents an alternative route to link the central regions of the Unionand Italy to Greece and the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, avoiding the inland route throughformer Yugoslavia. It integrates rail and road infrastructure, ports, links to ports and combined transportalong the Adriatic-Ionian coasts in Italy and Greece. In the framework of the TEN-T co-financing (CouncilRegulation 2236/95 (1)) the Commission has allocated financial support to two feasibility studiesconcerning the ‘Adriatic-Ionian Corridor’, one in Greece (financial support of ECU 0,34 million in1996) and one in Italy (financial support of ECU 1 million in 1995). According to information provided bythe authorities neither study has yet been completed.


2. Previous studies show that there are good opportunities for the development of combined transportand short sea shipping on the corridor. It is therefore expected that this important corridor will be able tocontribute substantially to improving the access of peripheral regions of the Community and ofMediterranean countries to the central regions of the Community in a framework of sustainable mobilityof persons and goods. The Commission is therefore convinced of its usefulness.

3. The Adriatic and Ionian seas were also recognised as an important transport element by the Thirdpan-European transport conference held in Helsinki in June 1997, where the Adriatic/Ionian PETrA (Pan-European transport area) was defined. It is intended that, for the PETrA, the countries concerned shouldwork on the establishment of an infrastructure development plan for the area and for its links with the pan-European corridors and the Trans-European transport network. With the encouragement of the Com-mission, Italy and Greece have jointly undertaken some preparatory work and plan to call a generalmeeting of all interested parties, including the Commission, in the near future.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.


by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes onimproving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Can the Commission estimate (in percentage and/or real terms) the extent to which nuclear safety hasimproved in the recipient countries, following the deployment of the various types of EU aid, since theprogrammes were initiated?



(30 July 1998)


As long ago as November 1996, in the study ‘Nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety in the East’(PE 166.083/fin.), the European Parliament’s STOA unit documented serious shortcomings in theadministration of EU financial aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in connection withthe PHARE and TACIS programmes. At around the same time the Commission commissioned a similarstudy, the purpose of which was to evaluate the safety improvements which had actually been achieved inthe nuclear sector in the recipient countries. However, the European Parliament has not been given accessto date either to that study or to its results. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggestthat little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmespreviously identified in the STOA study.

1. Does the Commission consider that the procedural rules governing the aid programmes make itpossible to react quickly enough to sudden problems, or are there possibilities for improvement in thisrespect and, if so, what are they?

2. Is it correct that the Commission is having serious problems in coordinating aid to the Central andEastern European nuclear sector, as intended by the G24 States, partly because of a lack of adequatecommunication not only between its own departments but also with other organisations involved, anddoes it consider the staff available to it in this area to be adequate in terms of numbers and qualifications?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the effects of the problem of liability on improvements in nuclearsecurity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and what effect are liability issues having on thesuccess of the EU funds deployed to this end?


4. How successful does the Commission consider the use of supply agencies, as the interface betweendonor and recipient countries, to have been, particularly in the area of on-site assistance and taking costaspects and implementation times into account, and should the Commission not retain more decisions as amatter for itself?



(30 July 1998)


The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes onimproving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The use of these funds hasbeen evaluated in a European Parliament study (STOA, PE 166.083/fin.). The Commission has alsocommissioned a similar study, but has not made its results accessible to the European Parliament.Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest that little or nothing has changed withregard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes previously identified in the STOA study.

1. Is it correct that studies drawn up under the PHARE and TACIS programmes and/or their results arenot communicated to the relevant authorities in the recipient countries, and in this context, what does theCommission consider to be the point of the heavy financial outlay in this connection?

2. Is the Commission aware that West European contractors pass on assignments to subcontractors inthe recipient countries who are able to work substantially more cheaply, and that the considerabledifference is retained by the West European consultants, and what is its view of this way of treating EUfunds?

3. What is the breakdown in percentage (and real) terms between West European consultants and theirCentral and Eastern European subcontractors in respect of services provided under the PHARE andTACIS programmes?

4. When will the Commission finally make available to the European Parliament the studies that it hasreceived concerning the use of EU funds to improve nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and inthe States of the former Soviet Union?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2488/98, E-2489/98 and E-2490/98given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

The Commission has committed some ECU 720 million toward the nuclear safety sector under the Phareand Tacis programmes (1990-1997). An interim evaluation has confirmed the positive impact of theprogrammes. It is clear that the programmes have established close cooperation with all the national safetyauthorities and power plant operators of the partner countries.

Measures to improve the efficiency of activities in the nuclear safety sector have been implementedwithout amending the regulation. In this respect, the Commission refers the Honourable Member tocomments on the Hoff report (1).

The Commission actively participates in all relevant international fora and maintains regular contacts withbilateral and multilateral donors.

The Commission concluded contracts under the 1991 Tacis programme in order not to delay theprogramme’s implementation. Because of the uncertainty about the rules applying to civil liability, thesecontracts contained restrictive clauses on the transmission of the findings of studies to beneficiaires. TheCommission’s attempts to find an interim solution to the problem pending ratification by Russia of theVienna Convention culminated in the signing in 1995 of a memorandum of understanding with theRussian Federation which included a provision on nuclear civil liability. All the restrictive clausesproposed by contractors have been systematically rejected since the memorandum was signed. A solution


was found in 1997 for contracts concluded before the memorandum was signed providing for an exchangeof letters between the contractors concerned and the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation(Minatom) allowing the findings of studies to be made available to beneficiaries.

Supply agencies are used solely for work which is not the responsibility of the public authorities.

The fee structure of Phare and Tacis contracts prevents experts from partner countries being invoiced atCommunity fee rates. The proportion of work sub-contracted to experts in partner countries variesaccording to the nature of the project under consideration. Studies of reactor design safety generallynecessitate a substantial contribution from the original designer (in some cases 50%). On-site assistancecontracts require much less involvement on the part of local sub-contractors.

(1) PE 223.140.


by Astrid Lulling (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Single market and exclusive distribution contracts

Because of the small size of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, retailers in Luxembourg always have tobuy from Belgian suppliers who have concluded exclusive distribution contracts for Belgium andLuxembourg.

In some cases ‘physical’ delivery of the goods to the Luxembourg retailer is carried out directly by aproducer or wholesaler who is not based in Belgium, whereas ‘accounting’ delivery goes through theBelgian intermediary, adding to the initial price a commission which can vary between 15 and 40%.

Does the Commission consider this system, which often results in the price charged to the Luxembourgretailer being higher than the consumer price of the same product in neighbouring countries, to becompatible with the single market and the principle of fair competition?

What measures could the Commission take to ensure that retailers in Luxembourg have the right to buytheir stock in any country they choose where there are distribution networks for the same product and thusescape exorbitantly expensive distribution networks?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

Commission Regulation (EEC) 1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty tocategories of exclusive distribution agreements (1) exempts, pursuant to Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty,exclusive distribution agreements, that is agreements whereby one party agrees with the other to supplycertain goods for resale within the whole or a defined area of the common market only to that other. It istherefore in line with the Community competition rules to assign to one distributor the task of resellingcertain goods in a defined area of the common market, such as the Belgo-Luxembourg area.

However, the Regulation provides that the block exemption ceases to apply to the agreements in questionif the contract goods cannot be supplied by other importers in the area covered by the exclusivedistribution agreement or obtained by users or intermediaries established in that area from undertakingsoutside it whose terms are more favourable.

(1) OJ L 173, 30.6.1983.



by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000 deprives Finnish farming of its spirit of enterprise, leading to ‘virtual agriculture’

The Agenda 2000 proposal would lead, if implemented, to producer price cuts for cereals (20%), beef andveal (30%) and dairy products (15%). This reform would lead in Finland to a kind of ‘virtual farming’,because the prices we could get for our produce would no longer cover even the production costs.Agricultural production costs are the sum of all the costs entailed by production activity. By comparingthis with the total yield from the relevant products one obtains the farm’s profitability.

According to official studies the average production costs per kilo for barley and oats at 1996 levels wereFIM 1,78 for the smallest farms and FIM 1,32 for the largest. The corresponding range for bread cerealswas FIM 2,10 to FIM 1,63. These figures, based on standardised farm models, represent the most efficientfarms in terms of yield. On average farms the production costs are even higher. The production costs forpigmeat, based on the same calculation models, vary between FIM 11 and FIM 20,67. Only 18% of farmsare able to produce pigmeat for FIM 11, while 47% of farms spend FIM 14 and the rest need betweenFIM 16 and FIM 20,67. In 1995, statistics show that production costs for milk were FIM 3,54 per litre.

If the producer price reductions proposed in Agenda 2000 are implemented Finnish agriculture will noteven begin to cover its production costs. In producing their crops, the farmers would be ‘eating’ their ownsubsidies, and thereby reducing their income. The greatest threat to farming in Finland is ‘virtualagriculture’, depriving the agriculture industry of the spirit of enterprise and motivation to work. For thisreason there can be no question of approving the price cuts proposed in Agenda 2000 without specialarrangements.

What does the Commission propose to do in the context of Agenda 2000 to protect the spirit of enterpriseand motivation in Finnish agriculture?


(22 September 1998)

The Commission shares the point of view of the Honourable Member on the challenge that Agenda 2000represents for Finnish farmers. They are still adjusting to the common agricultural policy (CAP) in theaftermath of accession and they have to face a new set of proposed reforms.

The evolution of the Finnish farming economy since accession is notable. Costs of production aredecreasing, farm structures are improving and the income evolution is positive. The pessimistic predictionon the dramatic decline of farming has not become a reality.

Particular handicaps such as those that affect Finnish farmers must be dealt with so as to ensure themaintenance of sustainable farming and rural communities in all the Union. This is specifically stated inthe Agenda 2000 proposal (1) (introduction, section 3):

For centuries Europe’s agriculture has performed many functions in the economy and the environ-ment and has played many roles in society and in caring for the land. That is why it is vital, as theLuxembourg European Council concluded in December 1997, that multifunctional agriculture mustdevelop throughout Europe, including those regions facing particular difficulties. In connection withAgenda 2000 and its implementation, care will accordingly need to be taken to provide propercompensation for natural constraints and disadvantages.


As in the past, the Commission will continue to help Finnish farmers to achieve a successful integrationand to help them to take advantage of all the opportunities allowed by the evolution of Community andworld agricultural markets.

(1) COM(98) 158 final.


by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Granting of subsidies to animal welfare organization

Can the Commission indicate which animal welfare organizations have submitted applications for asubsidy from Article B4-306 (Awareness and subsidies)?

Can it also indicate whether those applications have been approved and, if not, which ones have not beenapproved and why not?

Can it further indicate the amount devoted to animal welfare from Article B4-306?


(21 September 1998)

Each year, the Commission uses budget Heading B4-3060 to provide financial support to European non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in the defence of the environment (point 1) and to informationand awareness projects (point 2). Animal protection does not figure among the objectives and priorities ofthese two programmes. However, the Commission does fund certain bodies which, by protecting naturalenvironments, help protect wild animals.

Regarding the call for the submission of proposals under a Community action programme promoting non-governmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection (1), in accordancewith Council Decision No 97/872/EC of 16 December 1997 (2), the Commission received 62 proposals in1998. It selected 18 of them, including five which help protect animals: Seas at Risk (Netherlands),Birdlife International (United Kingdom), Eurosite (France), European Forum on Nature Conservation andPastoralism (United Kingdom) and International Friends of Nature (Austria). Proposals were not selectedwhich failed to meet the following criteria: cost-effectiveness; a sustainable multiplier effect at Europeanlevel; effective and balanced cooperation between the partners in terms of planning and carrying outactivities and financial contributions; contribution to a multinational approach and, in particular, totransboundary cooperation within the Community and, where appropriate, with neighbouring countriesoutside the Community; ability to foster dialogue and cooperation between the partners identified in thefifth action programme; degree of representativeness within the particular association movement; abilityto foster a multisectoral approach to the environment; quality of cooperation and dialogue between theassociation and its members via regular exchange of information; ability to demonstrate the financialfeasibility of the annual programme of activities by means of a realistic, reasonable and balanced budget;an undertaking to broadcast as widely as possible the Community’s current environment policy, especiallythe Community programme of policy and action on the environment and sustainable development.

Regarding the call for submission of proposals for general measures to inform and increase awareness ofenvironmental problems (3), in 1997 the Commission selected 59 proposals, including three concerningpublic information and awareness-raising on animal protection. The beneficiaries are: Wildlife EuropeSveriges Television AB (Sweden), Morgane Production (France) and the Institut Royal des SciencesNaturelles (Belgium). The 1998 selection of projects is under way.


The amount of appropriations awarded to animal protection and nature in 1997 for awareness projects, andin 1998 for NGOs, is ECU 628 000.

(1) OJ C 25, 24.1.1998.(2) OJ L 354, 30.12.1997.(3) OJ C 53, 22.2.1997.


by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Low producer prices for pigmeat

At present European pigmeat prices are at an extremely low level, with heavy losses for the pig producers.It is expected that this situation will deteriorate further in the coming months. Because of increasedproduction, this year an additional amount of some 800 000 to 900 000 tons of pigmeat will come onto theEuropean market. At the same time we are seeing the European pigmeat industry lose important andtraditional markets like southeast Asia and Russia, due to fierce competition from countries like the USAand Canada. In many cases these exports are only possible because of government support. On theEuropean market every ton of pigmeat exported means one ton less on the internal market and moreconsumption of beef, which costs about ten times more to take off the internal market.

1. Is the European Commission aware of the effect on the beef market of extra pigmeat coming onto theEuropean market?

2. Is the Commission willing to introduce export refunds on pigmeat products, which until last yearwere exported in large quantities to important markets like Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc., inorder to try to prevent a further fall in pigmeat prices and to help the European pigmeat industry to face theaggressive competition on third country markets?

3. Which other measures could the Commission envisage to prevent a further fall in pig prices toproducers?


(23 September 1998)

1. The Commission regularly assesses the links between different meat markets. However, the linkbetween beef and pigmeat is certainly not as clear-cut as suggested by the Honourable Member.

2. The Commission has followed the situation closely and already reacted by introducing exportrefunds for carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list ofeligible products for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.

3. The market organization for pigmeat has only two measures available for supporting the market.These are export refunds, which are limited by theWorld trade organisation (WTO) agreement, and aid forprivate storage. At present, the Commission is supporting the market by a strengthening of the exportrefund policy.

The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible,but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whetherthey will adapt production and thereby improve the market price.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Political oppression in Burma

As the military dictatorship of Burma has carried out countless atrocities against the Burmese people andthe population of the country lives in extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural resources, whataction does the Council intend to take?

Would the Council advocate the imposition of economic and financial sanctions against the Burmesegovernment?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

The Council remains deeply concerned at the continuing violations of human rights and the lack ofdemocratic progress in Burma/Myanmar. The regime’s recent tightening of restrictions and increase ofpressure on the democratic opposition is particularly worrying and has been condemned by the Union.

The Union has on many occasions issued strong public statements deploring the human rights situationand the lack of democracy in Burma/Myanmar, most recently on 26 October 1998. At the 54th meeting ofUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights the European Union presented a Resolution criticising thehuman rights situation in Burma, which was adopted on 20 April 1998. The Union has also repeatedlyurged the Burmese rulers to enter into meaningful dialogue with all democratic opposition parties.

The EU furthermore maintains regular contacts with the ASEAN States regarding Burma/Myanmar, and isurging them to put increased pressure on the Burmese regime.

On 26 October 1998 the Council decided to extend for a further six months the common position onBurma adopted on 28 October 1996 (1), which provides for a number of restrictive measures vis-à-visBurma and senior Burmese officials. The Council also decided to strengthen that common position byprohibiting the issue of transit visas and extending the visa ban to cover Burmese authorities in the tourismsector (while ensuring that the ban is applied rigorously to all individual members of the State Peace andDevelopment Council (SPDC) and the military, together with their families). It echoed the view expressedby Aung San Suu Kyi that, in the present situation, it is inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma. TheCouncil also envisaged the possibility of economic and financial sanctions against Burma, but has takenno decision for the time being. It should however be mentioned in this regard that forced labour practicesin the country led to the EC’s decision to withdraw GSP benefits from Burma/Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.


by André Fourçans (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Operation of European financial markets

The advent of the euro will result in the increasing integration of Europe’s financial markets. The recentannouncement of an alliance between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges is an early indication ofthis.


Within this new framework which will gradually be established, does the Commission consider that agreater harmonization of the rules governing the operation of European financial markets is needed orrather that a European monitoring institution should be set up, modelled on the Security and ExchangeCommission in the United States?


(13 October 1998)

The euro will very quickly lead to an increase in the integration of wholesale financial markets. Thischange will be driven by the decision to conduct monetary policy through money market instruments, theconnection of national money markets in real time through Target and the decision of national authoritiesto issue new debt in euro and to redominate existing debt from the beginning of 1999. The elimination ofexchange rate risk and of currency matching rules will also have important implications for stock markets,and on the behaviour of corporate borrowers and for investors.

Nevertheless the Commission is also aware that the introduction of the euro will make remaining gaps andloopholes in the internal market in financial services more visible. To develop all the benefits of theintroduction of the euro it is essential that the functioning of financial services markets be streamlined. Inorder to ensure that this is the case, the Commission, in line with the conclusions of the Cardiff EuropeanCouncil in June 1998, will table by the end of the year a ‘fremework for action’ to improve the singlemarket in financial services. This framework will examine the effectiveness of the implementation ofcurrent legislation, identify weaknesses which may require amending legislation, and outline theCommission’s opinion on the modernisation of financial market regulation. This strategic review willdraw on a wide range of inputs from market operators, representative bodies, regulators and supervisors.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste

1. A number of years have gone by since the publication of the report by the European Parliament’sCommittee of Inquiry on the Handling and Transport of Nuclear Material and the adoption of a directiveon this subject. In view of the revelations that the limit values for the transport of radioactive waste andspent nuclear fuels are grossly exceeded, does the Commission feel it would be useful for the EuropeanParliament to appoint another Committee of Inquiry?

2. Does the Commission agree that because the limit values for the transport of radoactive waste andspent nuclear fuels transported from the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland to France havebeen exceeded this constitutes contravention of Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM (1) of 3 February 1992based on Article 31 Euratom Treaty?

What action does the Commission intend to take against this contravention?

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.


(5 October 1998)

1. It is clearly for the Parliament to decide whether or not an enquiry should be undertaken. TheCommission would, however, suggest that the following points be taken into consideration: (a) despite thenumber of incidents now revealed it seems clear that there was no breach of the Community dose limits;(b) the final results of the investigations by the French and German authorities are not yet available butwill obviously be relevant to any decision; (c) the Commission has itself given an undertaking to examine


these results once available and to consult all relevant Member States to ensure that the lessons learned arewidely disseminated and appropriate actions taken at national and Community levels.

2. According to Article 3 of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision andcontrol of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community (1),‘the transport operations necessary for shipment shall comply with Community and national provisionsand with international agreements on the transport of radioactive material’.

In the present case national provisions which are in conformity with Annex VII of the RID (Regulationsconcerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail) have been violated by operators. TheRID is Appendix B of the Convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF). CouncilDirective 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard tothe transport of dangerous goods by rail (2) introduces the RID as a mandatory text for national andintracommunity transport.

It is for the national authorities to ensure that the situation is rectified. The Commission will verify that thenecessary measures have been taken at national level.

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.



(1 September 1998)


1. The Commission set out the guidelines for the disposal of radioactive matter and fuel elements in acommunication in 1994. It proposed harmonising the definition and categories of radioactive waste,establishing common strategies for reprocessing, reducing the volume and the transport of radioactivewaste and drawing up plans to improve safety of disposal, in particular storage. Does the revelation thatlimit values have been exceeded for nuclear waste shipments from the Federal Republic and Switzerlandto France mean that there is now a need for the Commission to take action?

2. The transport rules for maximum exposure are based on IAEA recommendations currently in force.For non-fixed contamination on the surface of containers and vehicles the rules provide the following limitvalues: 4 Bq/cm2 for beta and gamma emitters and 0,4 Bq/cm2 for alpha emitters. The limit values areprecautionary measures laid down for the protection of persons handling shipments.

3. Does the Commission regard exceeding by up to 5000 times the limit values for the shipment ofradioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels pursuant to the IAEA rules as unacceptable, and whatconclusions does it draw?



(1 September 1998)


The IAEA’s Safety Series 37 explains that if the recommended decontamination measures are observedthere should be no question of the limit values being exceeded. However, occasional values in excess of


the limit values are entirely harmless given that the limit values are conservative in nature. If the limitvalues are exceeded, the recipient should inform the sender of this so that the latter can take remedialaction.

1. Does the Commission believe that the IAEA’s findings are still appropriate?

2. What action does the Commission intend to take, given that it has become known that limit valueshave been exceeded by up to 5000 times in the case of shipments of nuclear waste?


given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission accepts that the statements taken from the International atomic energy agency (IAEA)safety series 37 are still appropriate.

The conservative nature of the limits is well illustrated by the results of the enquiries carried out by theFrench and German authorities, which although yet to be completed, already clearly show that there hasbeen no overexposure of workers or members of the public despite the excess contamination levels and thenumber of such events now communicated.

However, the frequency with which such events have occurred and the late recognition of the situationclearly calls for further action. In the first instance such action is the responsibility of the nationalauthorities which have quite properly been carrying out an extensive review of current practices with theaim of taking corrective action to ensure not only that individual events are indeed no more than‘occasional’ but also that when they do occur all appropriate parties are duly informed in keeping with theIAEA statements.

Equally, the Commission recognizes that lessons learned in France and Germany can also be relevant toensuring good practices in other Member States. As stated in its declaration to Parliament on 17 June 1998,therefore, the Commission foresees examining the French and German final reports from the point of viewof the situation not only in these Member States but also in other relevant Member States. For this purposeit will be consulting with all such Member States as a matter of urgency.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Shortcomings in the transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC in the Lombardy region and theBrescia Province in Upper Italy

To date, the Upper Italian region of Lombardy, and, in particular, the Brescia Province which forms partthereof, have not transposed in full the Directive referred to above.

In particular, with a few exceptions, the Lombardy Regional Council (Giunta Regionale Lombardia) andthe Brescia Province have, to date, not designated as protected areas the passes through the Brescia Alpswhich are important for bird migration and which, according to a study drawn up in April 1997 by theState Forestry Corps (Corpo Forestale dello Stato), constitute some of the most significant autumnmigration routes for European songbirds and birds of prey across the Alps; capturing birds with nets hasstill been authorized year after year, although actions brought on the basis of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) byItalian nature protection societies against such authorizations regularly succeed before the region’sadministrative courts; in 1997 alone, the shooting of more than eight million sparrows, starlings,chaffinches and bramblings was permitted, although those birds are protected under EU law.

1. What is the Commission intending to do in order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council andthe Brescia Province to fulfil their obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC and todesignate as protected areas the passes through the Brescia Alps which are so important for birdmigration?


2. What is the Commission intending to do in order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council at longlast to comply with the ban on the hunting of migratory birds with nets (see Article 8(1) of the Directivereferred to above)?

3. What is the Commission intending to do into order to persuade the Lombardy Regional Council notto authorize in future the shooting of bird species not listed in Annex II to Directive 79/409/EEC as speciesthat may be hunted?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.


(23 October 1998)

The insufficient classification of special protection areas in Italy is the subject of infringementproceedings against Italy. A reasoned opinion has been notified to the Italian authorities.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, Article 8 of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wildbirds states that ‘Member States shall prohibit the use of all means, arrangements or methods used for thelarge scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds or capable of causing the local disappearance of aspecies, in particular the use of those listed in Annex IV’. Nets are listed in the Annex mentioned,consequently they are forbidden. However, Article 9 of the same Directive states that Member States mayderogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8, where there is no satisfactory solution, for a certainnumber of reasons and under well specified and defined conditions. Provided that these reasons andconditions are fully respected, it is possible for a Member State to adopt a specific derogation on the basisof which hunting with nets is allowed.

As for the case of Lombardy mentioned by the Honourable Member, a complaint has been registeredfollowing a previous enquiry and a letter requesting information sent to the Italian authorities, in order tocheck the compliance of the derogation adopted by ‘Regione Lombardia’ with Article 9 of Directive79/409/EEC.

The Commission is waiting for a response. It will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure theobservance of Community law.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA)

In replying to my Written Question E-1779/98 (1) concerning the unacceptable situation regarding thespread of nationalities among the staff of the EEA, Commissioner Bjerregaard, who is normally highlycircumspect, made a significant slip of the tongue − albeit unwittingly, I am sure − in saying that ‘ ... thereis no formal division of posts according to geographical or demographic criteria. On the contrary,recruitment is principally on merit ...’. The obvious implication of this answer is that the Greeks and Irishhave no merit since the EEA has deemed that only one Greek and one Irish national deserve to work at theAgency, whereas seven Belgian and seven Dutch nationals, for example, have been recruited as officials.

At another point in her answer, Mrs Bjerregaard stresses that ‘In a small organization like the EuropeanEnvironment Agency, which is based in the north of Europe, there will inevitably be practical difficultiesin reconciling the need for the best candidates and the need for a good geographical spread’. Thegoverning body of the EEA (which is constantly informing the members of the Committee on Budgets −through the Commission − of the reasons why funding for the EEA should be increased) and theCommission itself, know full well that the decentralized agencies do not exist to recruit officials from thegeographical area in which they are located but to serve European citizens and not incite them by theirpractices and ‘open and transparent competitions’, as Mrs Bjerregaard puts it. Recent experience with the


legal bases of the EU budget, moreover, has shown that matters can become rather complicated when theprocedures followed are not transparent.

What practical measures has the Commission taken to enhance the transparency of the recruitmentprocedure at the EEA and to eliminate the imbalance in the spread of nationalities among its officials (notthe national experts)?

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 91.


(1 October 1998)

The Honourable Member’s conclusions on the reply to Written Question E-1779/98 were doubtless made‘tongue-in-cheek’, but nonetheless he will appreciate that recruitment on merit can only be on the basis ofthe applications received.

The Honourable Member is aware that the Commission can only offer advice to the Europeanenvironmental agency on how to conduct its recruitment, but the Commission does understand hisconcerns at the apparent difficulty in attracting the best candidates from Southern Europe to apply forposts. The Commission has informed the Agency of the Honourable Member’s questions and will ask thatthe executive director consider possible remedies for future recruitment competitions.

The Commission will continue to be represented in future selection procedures.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Human rights in Tunisia

Following reports that Tunisia has been involved in numerous suppressions of human rights: the right totravel, freedom of speech and the right to be politically active, what action does the Council intend to taketo ensure that Tunisia respects the human rights clause of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

1. The Council is aware of the importance of respect for human rights throughout the world and sharesthe Honourable Member’s concern regarding the human rights situation in Tunisia. It is watchingdevelopments in this area very closely.

2. The Council recognises that Tunisia is a country in transition and one of the Mediterranean partnersmost committed to its relationship with the Union. It recognises that Tunisia is an active participant in theBarcelona Process, striving to transform the Mediterranean basin into an area of peace, prosperity andstability. It acknowledges that Tunisia plays a leading role in this Process and has set the pace for the othercountries in the area, by being the first Mediterranean partner to ratify an Association Agreement. It hasthus committed itself, among other things, to a regular political dialogue, which will include human rights.


3. A first EU-Tunisia Association Council took place on 13-14 July 1998, which also allowed for anexchange of views on human rights questions; on that occasion the EU had the opportunity of stressingthat the aims of the association are based on shared respect for democracy, human rights and the rule oflaw. It confirmed that the political dialogue between the two partners will enable them to consult eachother frankly on a whole series of political issues, including human rights, and should contribute to thegovernment’s aspirations to develop democratic traditions and civil society based on the rule of law.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Headage payments in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of recent serious problems in the mountain regions in the West of Irelandrelating to headage payments (compensatory allowances), where sometimes a husband and wife haveseparate herds which are grazed on commonage as is the tradition in such systems? Can the Commissionstate whether or not such common grazing is in violation of the conditions for headage payments under thescheme?


(29 September 1998)

The Commission is responsible for the approval of the national headage schemes according to Communityrules, but not for the approval of individual applications which falls under the competence of the nationalauthorities. Consequently, the Commission is not aware of the specific case of granting headage paymentsto both husband and wife for separate herds grazing on commonage to which the Honourable Memberrefers. Also the control missions undertaken to check the correct implementation and application of theschemes in the Member States give no indications on irregularities in the application of the approvedheadage scheme.

The general possibility to grant headage payments for animals grazing on commonage is compatible withCommunity law and has been approved for Ireland. In the Irish scheme, the applicants have either tooccupy and farm at least 3 hectares of utilised agricultural land which may include commonage or to havegrazing rights in less favoured areas which are equivalent to a farming area of 3 hectares in order to beeligible for headage payments. If both husband and wife manage completely independent farms in lessfavoured areas and fulfil this condition, each of them is eligible for headage payments from the viewpointof Community law. However, national provisions set a limitation on separate applications in the case oftwo or more people managing one or more herds as a single unit. In such a case, they should be treated asone joint applicant and their herds as one joint herd for the purpose of the headage scheme.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Cohesion and Structural Funds payments to Ireland

Can the Commission state how much EU finance is to be paid to Ireland under the current six-yearprogramme under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and how much of this money had actuallybeen paid by 1 January 1998?



(24 September 1998)

Direct structural fund support for Ireland is based on the Community support framework 1994-1999,backed up by a series of Community initiatives for the same period. These sources of finance shouldprovide a total of ECU 5 900 million, of which ECU 3 250 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.

In addition, Ireland will benefit during this period from a further ECU 250 million being made availableunder the Peace and Interreg Community initiatives which it jointly manages with the United Kingdom.Under these programmes a global contribution of nearly ECU 550 million in Community support wasforeseen, of which ECU 171 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.

Ireland’s share of the Cohesion fund will be between 7% and 10% of the total budget allocation over theperiod 1993-1999. This share is estimated to be between ECU 1 167 million and ECU 1 668 million. On31 December 1997, payments totalled ECU 698,5 million.

The Commission recalls that its payments in respect of interventions for the current programming periodmay, in general, continue to be made up to the end of 2001.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Pigmeat sector

Is the Commission aware of the current disastrous situation in the pigmeat sector and has the Commissionmade any proposals which might help to avoid widespread bankruptcies in the industry?


(16 September 1998)

The Commission is well aware that after two good years of exceptionally high pigmeat market prices,European pig farmers have considerably increased their production for 1998, which has inevitably beenfollowed by lower market prices. There was a considerable increase in production already in 1997, whichwas blanketed by the removal of a large amount of pigs from the markets due to classical swine fever. Theprice drop in a situation of increased production is a typical cyclical phenomenon of pig production. Onthe other hand the lower prices will enhance consumption.

The Commission has followed the situation closely and has already reacted by introducing export refundsfor carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list of eligibleproducts for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.

The exports to third countries have developed quite well. Total exports to third countries increased in 1997to an all time high of 1,07 million tonnes, of which 78% was possible without export refunds. During lasttwo years the Community increased pigmeat exports to Eastern Europe and Russia by 25% and exports toSouth East Asia (including Japan) increased by 51% during the same period. The export figures for thefirst quarter of 1998 suggest a further increase of exports.

The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible,but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whetherthey will adapt production and thereby improve the market price.



by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Rape and sexual abuse of children at a European Union crèche

The Belgian judicial authorities have charged two members of staff at the Clovis crèche, an establishmentfalling under the Union’s responsibility, with rape and sexual abuse of children attending the crèche.

The incidents are alleged to have taken place between January and July 1997.

For months, parents have been coming up against the conspiracy of silence being maintained by theCommission as well as by the crèche staff and the powers-that-be.

1. When did the Commission learn of the shocking incidents at the crèche?

2. By whom was it informed?

3. Did it immediately report the incidents to the Belgian judicial authorities?

4. Did it immediately contact the parents concerned?

5. Has it arranged psychological and/or medical follow-up care for the children?

6. Did it take the immediate precaution of removing the suspects? In other words, did the suspectscontinue to frequent the crèche after the Commission had learnt of the scandal?

7. Does the Commission not consider it essential to end the current system whereby the crèches are runand staff selected by a body practically independent of the Union?

8. Since the serious incidents occurred and in anticipation of a possible reform of the system, has theCommission taken steps to:

− tighten up its supervision of the running of Union crèches?

− check the aptitude of the staff recruited?


(16 October 1998)

1. and 2. On 29 May 1997 a parent complained to the management of the Clovis crèche allegingmistreatment and sexual abuse of their child, the crèche being one of the places attended by the child. TheManagement Committee of the crèche was informed the same day by the Director of the crèche who hadreceived the complainant.

3. Yes. The Commission contacted the judicial authorities as soon as it was informed of the facts of theincident. It assisted the judicial authorities thereafter.

4. Yes.

5. The parents refused the psycho-medical help offered by the Commission, preferring to call on anoutside specialist body. However, with the assistance of the ‘Association des parents des crèches’ and the‘SOS enfants’ association, the Commission organised group hearings for parents using the Clovis crèche.


6. On 28 June 1997, the Brussels Prosecution Service opened proceedings following the lodging of acomplaint. The Commission Security Office immediately took precautionary measures to ensure thechildren’s safety. There were no immediate accusations against individual staff members at the Cloviscrèche.

The two teachers who came under suspicion subsequently ended their services under contract to Esedra atthe end of the 1996-97 school year. They took leave from 27 July and 1 August 1997 and were no longer inBelgium when the rumours about them started up. The intention had been to extend both contracts fromthe beginning of October 1997 to the end of December 1997, which is why they returned on 6 October1997. At this point the management of the establishment decided to drop them both and cancelled theextension of their contracts. These two teachers have not worked at the Clovis crèche since 6 October1997.

7. Of the three interinstitutional crèches in Brussels, two are directly managed by the Commission, andone by a private firm under Belgian law for which the tender procedure was launched. The organisationand operation of the Clovis crèche and the recruitment conditions for the staff are in accordance with thequality standards laid down in the Commission specification, the application of which is regularly checkedby its departments. Since identical criteria are applied to all three crèches, whether managed directly by theCommission or by a private firm, there is no difference in the service provided. The Commission does not,therefore, consider there is any causal link between the type of management, i.e. whether a crèche ismanaged directly or by a sub-contractor, and the occurrence of such incidents in a crèche.

8. Over the years the Commission has set up the necessary conditions to ensure proper supervision ofthe crèches in keeping with the high standards expected of a child-minding service. Since the aboveincidents, in particular at the Clovis crèche, different types of check, including checks of the operation andof the staff, have been made according to the normal schedule. However, in view of the circumstances,there is an obvious need for coordination meetings and more sustained specific checks, with a twofoldgoal of reinforcing security and facilitating the inquiry. In addition, the Commission maintains contactswith the Office National de l’Enfance (ONE), a body engaged in the inspection of day-care facilities in theBrussels region with a view to setting up a system of collaboration in terms of supervising managementand studying mistreatment.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Promoting quality meat

What funds has the Commission provided or earmarked for the promotion of quality meat as a means ofreversing the recent slump in beef consumption, restoring consumer confidence, and thus bringing aboutan increase in beef consumption?


(17 September 1998)

Since 1993, the Commission has supported promotion and marketing measures for quality beef and vealunder Council Regulation (EEC) 2067/92 of 30 June 1992 on measures to promote and market quality beefand veal (1).


The following table summarises the budgetary situation with regard to finance for the measures:

(ECU million)

Year Amount of budgetappropriations

Amount ofmeasures selected

Expenditureon measures selected

1993 10,0 16,4 9,1

1994 10,0 4,0 2,7

1995 10,0 8,7 3,6

1996 10,0 − 3,1

1997 12,0 25,0 7,7

1998 27,0 13,6 (1) 16,6

Preliminary draft budget 1999 16,9 − 16,9 (2)

NB: The budget appropriations refer to expenditure. Payment for the measures normally straddles two budget years.(1) Of which ECU 10,3 million in preparation.(2) Estimate.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.


by Sören Wibe (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Salaries of officials

Public opinion in Sweden is shocked that Swedish citizens working at the Commission and Parliamentinformation offices in Stockholm receive very high salaries while paying a much lower rate of tax thanordinary members of the public. In Sweden, this leaves the heads of the two information offices withhigher salaries after tax than the Swedish Prime Minister.

Should European Union officials based in their own countries not also pay tax in accordance with the taxregulations applying in those countries?


(22 September 1998)

Under the terms of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities (1), officials areliable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by theCommunities. The tax is deducted at source and the proceeds are paid into the Community budget. Thereare 14 tax rates ranging from 8% to 45% applied to consecutive salary bands.

Officials are exempt from direct national income taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by theCommunities. They pay, of course, indirect taxes (such as value added tax) according to national taxregimes.


With specific reference to officials posted to Commission representations, Commission policy is to limitas far as possible the number posted to their own Member State (2) and to apply a four year rotationsystem.

(1) See Article 13 of Chapter V. The protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Communities is annexed to theTreaty signed on 8 April 1965 establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the Communities and wasaccepted by Sweden in the accession Treaty.

(2) Less than 1% of officials are posted to representations, and even less to their own Member State.


by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Financial support for the projects of the ACP National Chambers of Commerce Association

A number of ACP national operators have applied to the EU (by means of the Commission delegations intheir respective countries and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 164 of the FourthLomé Convention) for funding for two projects via the Association of National Chambers of Commerce,Industry and Other Economic Operators in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, which acts as an ACPtrade forum. These projects are the ACP National Chambers Network Project and a project concerning theorganisation of a meeting on the role of the private sector in future relations between the EU and the ACPcountries.

The Libreville Declaration, which was adopted at the Summit of Heads of State and Government in Gabon(November 1997), acknowledges the need for institutional innovation and expresses support for theestablishment of an ACP-EU trade forum to represent ACP businesses and trade institutions (paragraph32).

The ACP-EU Joint Assembly held in Brussels in March 1997 adopted a resolution (ACP-EU 2082/97/fin.)in which it called on the Commission to provide the financial support needed to improve the promotionand the services of the above Association. In his oral reply to Question No 17 by the above Assembly,Mr Pinheiro, Commissioner, gave an undertaking to support any initiative by the Association which wasintended to improve the exchange of trade and industrial information between ACP chambers and betweenthe latter and those of the EU.

In more than thirty years of ACP-EU cooperation the Commission has never undertaken a cooperationproject with the ACP Chambers of Commerce which would help to consolidate their potential, which isessential in order to focus the development of the private sector in the ACP countries and the involvementof civil society in cooperation policy.

Is the Commission therefore intending to provide support for the necessary consolidation of the ACPAssociation of National Chambers of Commerce, Industry and Other Economic Operators as a tradeforum, in order to comply with Joint Assembly resolution ACP-EU 2082/97/fin. and to honour thecommitment given by Mr Pinheiro in his reply to Question No 17 by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly?


(6 October 1998)

Recently the Commission received several letters from national authorising officers of African, Caribbeanand Pacific (ACP) countries with a request for financing under Article 164 of the Lomé convention of twoprojects related to the Association of ACP national chambers of commerce, industry and other economicoperators. The projects are an ‘ACP national chambers network project’ and a conference on the role ofthe private sector in future relations between the ACP and the Community.


The negotiating directives on future relations between the ACP and the Community emphasize theimportance of support for private sector development after Lomé IV. The Commission is also preparing acommunication on future Community support for private sector development in ACP countries, whichwill be discussed during autumn 1998.

Therefore it appears that the Association is organising the conference at the right moment and theCommission would be very much interested in the reflections and perceptions of the private sectorrepresented by the national ACP chambers and is presently considering a request for co-financing theconference.

As regards the other project it should be noted that the Commission is currently discussing the possibilitiesof supporting the Association in a way which will appropriately address the needs of its members.

Finally the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the ‘EU-ACP business scheme’ (EBAS)which will be implemented from the beginning of 1999 targetting service users (private ACP companies)and also service providers such as export associations and chambers of commerce.


by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Minority languages and cultures: Community funding

The Commission is drawing up a proposal to provide a legal basis for a number of budget headings whichlack such a basis and whose implementation has for that reason been suspended.

Could the Commission say which budget headings are involved and, in particular, whether they includeheading B3-1006 on the promotion and protection of minority languages and cultures?

Could the Commission say what action it will take in respect of programmes which are currently beingadopted, those which have already been adopted and those which are currently being implemented underbudget heading B-1006 pending the final adoption of the appropriate legal basis?

Could the Commission provide information concerning the timetable for the adoption of the relevantproposal by the College of Commissioners and say what procedures and timescale will subsequently befollowed when the proposal comes before Parliament and the Council?


(25 November 1998)

The Commission confirms that it is planning to present Parliament and the Council with a proposal for alegal basis for activities currently financed under item B3-1006 (promotion and protection of minoritylanguages and cultures). It is preparing a multiannual programme which should be adopted by theCommission before the end of 1998.

Regarding the 1998 budget, implementation of the measure was not prevented by the lack of a legal basis.About half the appropriations allocated to the measure had already been committed before 31 Mayfollowing selection of a first set of projects. Selection of the second set of projects took place before10 June, the date on which the Commission decided to suspend implementation of headings lacking a legalbasis following the Court of Justice decision in Case C-106/96. The Commission considered thatbeneficiaries whose projects had been accepted at the time of the second selection had legitimateexpectations; the project therefore continued to receive the subsidy.



by Arie Oostlander (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Quality of milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry that qualify for subsidies under theEU school milk scheme

To what extent do milk products of the Netherlands dairy industry, such as chocolate milk, buttermilk andyoghurt drinks, satisfy the quality standards defined by the Commission for dairy products that qualify forsubsidies under the EU school milk scheme?

Which products, if any, do not satisfy the Commission’s quality standards and to what extent?

If the products concerned do satisfy the quality standards, will the Commission publicise the fact so thatschools may take advantage of a minimum choice of dairy products?


(18 September 1998)

The Community legislation on aid for milk and milk products distributed in schools merely lists thecategories of products which are eligible for aid, and does not actually specify what quality standards suchproducts must satisfy. As a result, the horizontal rules on the quality of dairy products placed on themarket also apply to the school milk scheme. It must therefore be assumed that no dairy productmanufactured by the Netherlands dairy industry should be excluded from the scheme for reasons ofquality.


by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU-Croatia relations

I refer to the hardly informative and more than inadequate answer to my question of 31 March 1998 to theCouncil (No P-1110/98 (1)) concerning the cancellation of the Council President’s visit to Zagreb, whichdid not take place until 6 July:

1. Instead of making general and unsubstantiated accusations about Croatia, is the Council prepared tostate specifically in what proven respects Zagreb has failed to honour its international commitments?

2. What does the phrase ‘by the regional approach and the policy of conditionality’ mean in normal,unbureaucratic language?

3. Is the Council aware that certain circles in the EU are pursuing a systematically hostile policy againstCroatia, even though it has taken an exemplary stand against foreign aggression and has neverthreatened any of its neighbours in any way?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 114.


Reply

(20/21 December 1997)

1. Under the Paris/Dayton Peace Agreement and more recently the Bonn Peace ImplementationCouncil (PIC) conclusions, Croatia is obliged to create conditions that are conducive to the safe andvoluntary return of refugees and displaced persons. However, since the end of the mandate of the UNTransitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES), physical and bureaucratic harassment ofSerbs has resulted in a constant flow of emigration, mostly to Bosnia, Federal Republic of Yougoslavia(FRY) and Western Europe.

Only following intense international pressure, Croatia finally adopted an acceptable and comprehensivePlan for the return of refugees. It still remains to be seen how this plan will be implemented.

The High Representative requested the Croatian Authorities on several occasions to use their influence onBosnian Croats to comply within the Federation with key Dayton/Paris obligations. PIC Steering Boardambassadors in Zagreb conducted demarches in Zagreb to highlight the need for continued Croatiancompliance with Dayton.

President Tudjman’s speech to the HDZ Party Congress on 21 February 1998 which drew fierce criticismfrom the international community both for its tone and the content, clearly has to be considered being incontradiction to Dayton obligations.

Consequently, the Council has on several occasions expressed the EU’s conviction that Croatia was fallingshort of its obligations and called on Zagreb to comply fully with Dayton/Paris (especially concerningspecial relations with the Federation), to remove obstacles to all-way refugee returns − particularly inKrajina − to publicly declare its commitment to reconciliation, to make progress on internal democracyand to demonstrate its commitment to Erdut and other agreements.

The Presidency Ambassador in Zagreb recently called on Foreign Minister Granic to convey the concernsof the EU, stressing that the EU expects the Croatian leadership to use its influence on HDZ Bosnia andHerzegovina to adhere to all commitments under the Dayton Accords.

2. In April 1997, the Council adopted a comprehensive strategy (the so-called regional approach) forthe relations with the countries in the Western Balkans: Croatia, Bosnia ans Herzegovina, FRY, FYROMand Albania. In order to consolidate peace and stability in the region, to contribute to its economic renewaland to advance its European vocation, it was decided that the EU would develop its relations with thesecountries step by step. To this end the EU established political and economic conditions which have to befulfilled in order to qualify first for autonomous trade preferences, then for the access to PHARE andfinally for contractual relations. The Council monitors the progress made towards these conditionsregularly and last adopted conclusions on the issue on 9 November 1998.

3. The Council does not share the opinion that certain circles in the EU are pursuing a systematicallyhostile policy against Croatia. The EU’s approach is based on objective criteria which are applicable to allthe countries of the region. The EU’s attitude towards these countries and its relations with them evolve infunction of the respect of the political and economic conditions set out in the Council conclusions of 29 and30 April 1997.



by Otto von Habsburg (PPE), Hiltrud Breyer (V),Charles Goerens (ELDR), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE), Claudia Roth (V),

Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania − expert reports

Several commissions of experts have recently visited Bulgaria and Romania to consider the visa problemthere. No reports have yet been published on these visits. If such expert reports already exist, when will theCouncil be submitting them to Parliament? What conclusions has the Council reached in this matter? If areport or reports of this kind have not yet been drawn up, when will they be compiled?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

Since it is not associated with the expert commissions mentioned by the Honourable Members, theCouncil has no knowledge of the existence or otherwise of any reports drawn up by such commissions.


by Hiltrud Breyer (V), Otto von Habsburg (PPE), Charles Goerens (ELDR),Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE), Claudia Roth (V), Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE)

and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania

1. How, in the Council’s opinion, can the strategy for bringing Bulgaria and Romania closer to theEuropean Union be reconciled with the visa requirement for their nationals, seeing that two EUinstitutions, the European Parliament and the Commission, have argued for the removal of these countriesfrom the common list compiled pursuant to Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the EuropeanCommunity and that the European Parliament will shortly be reaffirming this position?

2. What are the Council’s reason for refusing to withdraw the visa requirement in respect of thesecountries?

3. Is the Council aware of the sometimes unreasonable conditions under which visas are issued toBulgarian and Romanian nationals for entry into a Member Sate of the EU? Does the Council intend toease the requirements and conditions for the issue of such visas and to abolish them in the foreseeablefuture?

4. Does the Council regard the proportion of Roma people in the two countries as an obstacle to theremoval of the latter from the common list? If so, why?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

Currently there is no Commission proposal before the Council to remove Bulgaria and Romania from thelist of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external frontiersof the Member States.

The Council is not aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Members concerning thegranting of visas. Currently, the requirements and conditions laid down for granting visas are notharmonised at Community level.


It must be pointed out that visa policy does not distinguish between ethnic groups but is based oncitizenship of the countries in question.

As part of its strategy to approximate the policies of the countries applying for accession to those of theEuropean Union on visas, the Council has, since the Luxembourg Presidency, organised periodic meetingsbetween the Member States, the Commission and those countries.


by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Unauthorised subsidies for nuclear energy

The liberalisation of the European energy market is marching onwards and within the next few years willlead to substantial reductions in energy prices, to the benefit of citizens, as a result of increasingcompetition. However, the process set in train by the Commission must be subject to continuingmonitoring over the next few years to ensure that subsidies (in the broadest sense) do not lead to marketdistortions which would have economically and environmentally undesirable long-term consequences.The peaceful use of nuclear energy, in particular, prompts the question as to whether this sector does notenjoy such subsidies on a massive scale, thereby affecting the market opportunities of other forms ofenergy production, particularly production from renewable sources.

Does the Commission consider that nuclear power stations and/or their operators receive subsidies, in thebroad sense, which are incompatible with EU law, e.g. in the form of inadequate regulations and liabilityprovisions, (misdirected) research funding, State guarantees, etc.?

If not, can the Commission confirm that the cost accounting of nuclear power station operators makesadequate provision for:

− the damage and devastation that might occur in the event of an accident (worst-case scenario);

− the final storage of radioactive material or the complete reprocessing thereof;

− safe closure and preservation of nuclear power stations for the period of time during which theyrepresent a health and environmental risk, or environmentally safe scrapping at the end of theirrelatively short operating life?

If not, how does the Commission explain the price structure of nuclear energy? Would the Commissionaccept such incomplete cost accounting and its consequent price structure from other energy producers,particularly private-sector energy producers?

What does the Commission consider to be the likelihood of success if a traditional energy producer wereto bring proceedings under competition law against a nuclear operator?


(1 October 1998)

With the exception of a complaint currently under examination, the Commission currently has noevidence of subsidies for nuclear power plants that are incompatible with Community law.

The regulations on the obligation to build up reserves for nuclear damage, disposal of fuel elements anddecommissioning fall under the competence of the Member States. Partly, they are based on internationalconventions aiming at the establishment of a general safety framework for nuclear risks.


Under Article 24 of Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), Member States have the possibility tonotify to the Commission commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of thedirective, which may not be honoured on account of the provisions of the directive, with a view toapplying the transitional arrangements indicated in that article. The Commission is about to examine thosenotifications. Should the Commission − in this or any other context − be provided with concreteinformation about cost advantages that are not in line with Community state aid rules, it will examine themdiligently.

The Commission is obliged to examine complaints from undertakings or people against breaches ofCommunity competition rules. The likelihood of success depends upon the individual case and cannot beassessed in advance.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.


by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: European burden-sharing relating to refugees and displaced persons

The population flight associated with the crisis in Kosovo shows once again that EU-wide uniform criteriafor the admission of displaced persons, refugees or asylum-seekers are needed. The solution cannot be,however, to channel refugees systematically into so-called ‘safe third countries’, even if this is legaldefensible, because this affects reforming States, such as Hungary, which are right next door to the crisisareas, and which are anyway having to make great efforts to become ready to join the European Union. Inconnection with the creation of a possible ‘burden-sharing’ arrangement, attention is drawn to a proposalfrom the Commission for a Joint Action based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union(COM(97) 93 final (1)), on which the Council of Ministers has so far unfortunately failed to reachagreement: sensible, liberal provisions concerning family reunification and unrestricted permission fordisplaced persons to engage in gainful activity appear to be particularly contentious.

How do the ideas of the Council or of the Council Presidency concerning a ‘burden-sharing arrangementfor population flight’ look in detail? What criteria are to be used to determine the allocation of costsrelating to persons displaced by war?What criteria are to be used for distributing displaced persons amongthe EU Member States? Are refugees and asylum-seekers, as well as displaced persons, to be covered bysuch ‘burden-sharing’? If not, why not?

Are there plans for such ‘burden-sharing’ among the EU Member States also to include non-EU MemberStates, such as Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia and the Czech Republic, which are particularly affected andwhich are known to be deemed ‘safe third countries’? If so, in what form? If not, why not? What are thereasons for the above Commission initiative concerning temporary protection of displaced persons notbeing followed up? Will the Council do what it can to ensure that, until armed conflict in the crisis areascomes to an end, displaced persons and refugees from Kosovo are given de facto refugee status in all EUMember States, as was granted by Austria to refugees from Bosnia?

(1) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997, p. 13.

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The Commission recently (in July 1998) submitted to the Council and the European Parliament anamended proposal for a Joint Action concerning the temporary protection of displaced persons and a


proposal for a Joint Action concerning solidarity in the admission and residence of beneficiaries of thetemporary protection of displaced persons, which take into account the Opinion of the EuropeanParliament (1) and the discussions held within the Council’s bodies on the initial proposal (2) to whichthe Honourable Member refers.

The Council Presidency attaches a great deal of importance to this matter and has made it one of itspriorities.

Both proposals are currently being considered within the Council’s bodies, by the competent workingparty. At this stage in the proceedings, it is impossible for the Council to reply to the specific questionsraised by the Honourable Member regarding what is meant by ‘burden-sharing’ and the criteria governingit.

These proposals do not concern States which are not members of the European Union. If they are adopted,they will form part of the acquis, to which any new Member State of the European Union will have tosubscribe.

(1) OJ C 339, 16.11.1997, p. 146.(2) OJ C 106, 4.4.1997, p. 13.


by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Framework directive on foodstuffs

In his statement on the Breyer report (Foodstuffs additives − A4-0242/98) Mr Bangemann referred on14 July 1998 to the debate on a framework directive for foodstuffs. A directive of this kind was called forby Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 1998 (A4-0009/98).

Has the detailed discussion of such a directive already begun? Can a proposal for a directive still beexpected during the life of the current Parliament or during the term of office of the current Commission?

Will such a directive still be produced in sufficient time for it to be accepted as part of the ‘acquiscommunautaire’ by the applicant countries?


(8 October 1998)

The Commission is able to assure the Honourable Member that its departments will soon begin to preparethe final touches to a proposal for a framework directive on foodstuffs.

Given the complexity of the subject matter and the need to conduct highly detailed consultations with allof the parties concerned, the Commission is at the moment unfortunately not able to give it any indicationas regards the deadlines needed in order successfully to complete those preparations.


by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention

The Justice and Home Affairs Council has already held detailed discussions on the Eurodac Conventionwhich seeks to introduce a computer-assisted system for the exchange of fingerprints of asylum-seekers inimplementation of the Dublin Convention on Asylum. This prompts the following questions:


What form do the envisaged data protection provisions take?

For what period of time are the data to be stored?

According to reports, the scope of this measure is to be extended to include illegal immigrants as well bymeans of a protocol which is due to be adopted during the current presidency.

How far have the negotiations on this issue progressed? Are there objections to such an extension?

How is it intended to define the term ‘illegal immigrants’?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

1. The Council first wishes to point out that discussions on the draft Eurodac Convention are still inprogress.

It would also point out that the European Parliament was consulted (in a letter from the Presidency dated6 October 1997) on the draft Eurodac Convention and that it forwarded to the Council the Opinion itadopted on 15 January 1998.

The measures relating to the protection of data and to the time limit for storage already appeared in thedocument submitted to the European Parliament for consultation. The Honourable Member will never-theless find a summary of them below:

A. Provisions guaranteeing the protection of data

The draft Eurodac Convention contains several provisions on this, concerning in particular:

− the responsibility of the Member State of origin and the central unit as regards the use of data and themeasures to be taken to ensure their security;

− the right of persons with regard to data concerning them which are recorded in the Eurodac system(access, correction in the event of errors, erasure in the event of unlawful recording);

− monitoring by an independent national supervisory authority of compliance by the Member Stateconcerned with its data protection obligations;

− finally, monitoring by a joint supervisory authority of the central unit’s compliance with its dataprotection obligations.

B. Time limit for storage of data

The draft Convention provides that data will be kept in the central database for a period of ten years. Theywill be erased earlier where the person acquires the nationality of a Member State.

Data on asylum-seekers who have obtained in a Member State the status of refugee within the meaning ofthe Geneva Convention will be ‘blocked’ (in the sense that they will be separated from the rest of the dataand comparison results will not be forwarded to the Member States) in the central database during the firstfive years of Eurodac’s activities. At the end of this period, the Council will decide, on the basis ofstatistics established by the central unit, whether or not it is advisable to erase data relating to recognisedrefugees.

2. As regards the extension of the Eurodac system to include fingerprints of illegal immigrants, theJustice and Home Affairs Council, concluded at its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998 that:

− a protocol for this purpose would be drawn up for adoption by the end of 1998;

− Member States would take appropriate steps to ensure that the national procedures for adopting theEurodac Convention and any protocols were completed simultaneously at the earliest opportunity.


Discussions on extension are continuing while a draft protocol is being prepared containing a definition of‘illegal immigrants’ for the purpose of implementing the Eurodac Convention.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Extension of the Eurodac Convention

The Eurodac Convention which seeks to introduce a computer-assisted system for the exchange offingerprints of asylum-seekers in order to facilitate implementation of the Dublin Convention on Asylumhas already been under discussion for a long time. Nevertheless, it still prompts the following questions:

1. Does the Commission possess information as to what form the envisaged data protection provisionswill take and for what period of time the data are to be stored?

2. According to reports, the scope of the measure is to be extended to include illegal immigrants as wellby means of a protocol which is shortly due to be adopted.

3. How far have the negotiations on this issue progressed? Are there objections to such an extension?

4. How is it intended to define the term ‘illegal immigrants’?


(5 October 1998)

1. At its meeting on 4 and 5 December 1997, the Council confirmed the agreements reached at technicallevel for certain articles of the Eurodac Convention, including those relating to data storage. The relevantarticles provide that the fingerprint data of asylum seekers would be stored in the Eurodac central databasefor ten years from the date on which they were last taken. After the ten-year period had expired, thefingerprint data would be erased. Notwithstanding this, data would be erased as soon as the personconcerned acquired citizenship of a Member State. The Council also agreed on a procedure whereby datarelating to a person who had been recognised as a refugee would be blocked on the central database, andstatistical data would be compiled. After Eurodac had been operating for five years, the Council wouldrevisit the issue of whether to store or erase the data of recognised refugees, taking account of thestatistical information which would then be at its disposal.

The Convention contains a number of other detailed provisions on data protection arrangements. Theseprovisions are currently being reviewed in the light of the possibility that the Commission rather than aMember State would operate the Eurodac Central Unit.

2. and 3. At its meeting on 19 March 1998, the Council commissioned a feasibility study to examine thelegal and technical implications of a possible extension of the Eurodac Convention to cover illegalimmigrants. At its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998, the Council concluded that, taking account of thefeasibility study, it would draw up a protocol to the Eurodac Convention extending the Eurodac system toillegal immigrants for adoption by the end of 1998. The Council noted that the precise definition of whatconstitutes an illegal immigrant is still to be determined. Negotiations are now taking place in the Councilon the basis of the Council’s conclusions of May 1998.

The Commission considers that the extension of the Eurodac Convention to ‘illegal immigrants’ wouldrequire the development of a separate set of rules on data storage and deletion specific to that category ofpeople.


4. The precise definition of an ‘illegal immigrant’ has not yet been determined. The Commission notes,however, that there is general agreement that the purpose of fingerprinting illegal immigrants is tofacilitate the implementation of the Dublin Convention. The relevant articles of the Dublin Convention areArticle 6 and, depending on the outcome of discussions in the Council, Article 10.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Assessment of transposition of the acquis communautaire in the applicant countries

A British Home Office Minister has stated that the third pillar acquis has already been listed in detail inanticipation of enlargement. The lists in question are to be used to gauge the progress of the accessionnegotiations and transposition of the acquis. A common assessment procedure has been laid down for thatpurpose, and an expert working party of Member State representatives set up to monitor the transposition.

1. What is the basis and underlying criteria of the assessment procedure?

2. Will the public be able to keep track of the assessment procedure? What specific form does theprocedure take?

3. For whom will the expert working party draw up its assessments, and will the public be allowed toinspect them?

4. Who represents Austria in the expert working party?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

1. The basis of the assessment procedure is the Joint Action establishing a mechanism for collectiveevaluation of the enactment, application and effective implementation by the applicant countries of theacquis of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (1) approved by the Justice andHome Affairs Council at its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the PermanentRepresentatives Committee set up the expert group referred to in Article 2 of that Joint Action. The firstmeeting of this Collective EvaluationWorking Group took place in Brussels, on 30 September 1998. Sincethen country-by-country evaluations have been carried out on a regular basis.

2. The evaluation procedure involves analysing information relating to the effective implementation bythe candidate countries of the acquis of the Union. The information examined by the Evaluation WorkingGroup is essentially based on Member States’ experience of working with the candidate countries, on thereports from Commission delegations in these countries and the information available to the Commissionwithin the framework of the overall process of accession (including reports concerning the PHAREprogramme) together with reports from the Council of Europe or from any other source deemed to berelevant. The Commission should take account of the evaluations in its proposals for significantadjustment of the priorities and objectives of the accession partnerships.

3. The Collective Evaluation Working Group will report to the Council on the progress and results ofthe evaluations through Coreper and in close cooperation with the K.4 Committee and with the otherCouncil bodies involved in the enlargement process.

4. It is the responsibility of each Member State to designate its representative to the Group.

(1) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 8.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Transparency and openness in the sphere of justice and home affairs

When they met within the Council in March 1998, the Ministers responsible for justice and home affairsissued a statement on openness and transparency. The object was to make details of measures more readilyand rapidly accessible, provide regular exhaustive information to the press, and organise open Councildebates. In addition, the national parliaments were to be briefed at an earlier stage.

1. What practical steps will the Presidency-in-Office take to implement the above statement?

2. How will information (for the public and Press) be made more easily accessible?

3. What will be done to involve the national parliaments earlier in the day?

4. What open debates is the Austrian Presidency planning to organise?

5. How far has the Council progressed in its preparations to compile a list of documents available forinspection by the public, an essential means of promoting transparency and bringing the Union closer tocitizens?

6. What seminars and conferences on justice and home affairs does the Austrian Presidency plan tohold? How will the conclusions be brought to public notice?

7. According to reports, the British Presidency, in collaboration with the Commission, drew up an exactlist of legislation constituting the third pillar acquis, which is now to be used as a basis for the accessionnegotiations. Would it not be conducive to transparency to publish the list? If so, when can the list besupplied?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The Council must emphasise that it attaches considerable importance to complying with its obligations asregards transparency and public access to Council documents. This is particularly the case as regardsdecisions concerning access to documents under Council Decision 93/731/EEC.

The Council is also aware of the new obligations which entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty willimpose on it with regard to openness. Article 1 of the TEU, as amended, will establish the principle ofopenness in decision-making within the EU and Article 255 of the EC Treaty, as amended, will givecitizens of the Union right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subjectto principles and conditions to be defined. Under Article 41 of the amended TEU, Article 255 will alsoapply to Title VI of the TEU.

As to the Honourable Member’s question regarding the practical steps taken by the Presidency-in-Office,the Council would point out that the conclusions adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on19 March 1998 have been and are being taken into account with respect to all measures, decisions andaction of the Austrian Presidency. The schedule of meetings of the K.4 Committee and the working partieshas been made available to the public and the number of press conferences has been increased. In addition,the Presidency intends to publish a progress report at the end of its term of office on the work carried out inthe sphere of justice and home affairs. It is also proposed to publish the proposals put forward at the timeof their submission to the European Parliament, initially on the Internet and subsequently in the OJEC.

As far as open debates are concerned, it should be noted that the Council, in its ‘justice and home affairs’composition, will hold an open debate on 3 December 1998 on the subject of an ‘Action plan onestablishing an area of freedom, security and justice’.


It should also be pointed out that a number of seminars in the field of justice and home affairs have beenorganised under the Austrian Presidency. A detailed list will be forwarded directly to the HonourableMember.

In addition, work is currently under way on the publication on the Internet of documents concerning TitleVI. This work will be completed as soon as possible. A copy of the list of the European Union’s acquis inthe field of justice and home affairs up to May 1998 will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member.

Finally, the Council would draw attention to the fact that the Protocol on the role of national parliaments inthe European Union, which will be added to the Treaties by the Amsterdam Treaty, provides for nationalparliaments to be informed in good time of any legislative proposal or other significant measure to allowthem to examine it. This Protocol is intended to encourage the closer involvement of national parliamentsin the European Union’s activities and to enhance their ability to express their points of view on matters ofparticular interest. It should be noted that the Council’s practice, where justice and home affairs areconcerned, is to make all documents available in the eleven official languages of the European Union atleast fifteen days before the Council meeting concerned. As a result, all national parliaments have thepossibility − through their Governments − of scrutinising the proposals made within the European Unionframework.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Environmental crime

The fight against organised crime is increasingly becoming a key concern for the Union. It is generallyagreed that the threat posed needs to be tackled through individual and joint action.

The conclusions of the Cardiff Summit noted that environmental crime was a serious, disturbing matterwhose effects often extended beyond national borders. Measures would accordingly have to be taken tocombat it.

1. What practical steps will the Commission take to answer the above call for action?

2. What particular forms will the measures take?

3. What impact will they have on criminal prosecution issues in the Member States?


(5 October 1998)

The Commission agrees with the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council on the need for closercooperation at European level to combat environmental crime. It will examine with interest the proposalsto provide common definitions of offences announced by the Danish Minister for Justice during the publicdebate at the Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) held in May 1998. Such measures will facilitatejudicial cooperation and prevent certain firms from taking advantage of existing disparities betweencriminal laws to the detriment of the environment. The Commission feels this initiative should besupplemented by a communication on stepping up the fight against environmental crime. The commu-nication would cover the exchange of information, training, investigations, prevention and legal matterssuch as improved enforcement of existing legislation. With regard to the last point, as the Commissionalready mentioned in its communication on Implementing Community environmental law (1), it isplanning to include specific provisions in its proposals for environmental legislation, requiring theMember States to make provision, in their transposal measures, for penalties, including criminal penalties,in the event of an infringement of these measures.

(1) COM(96) 500 final.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Judicial cooperation

Organised crime is a priority issue for the Austrian Presidency. Inadequacies in the judicial cooperationsystem foster every form of cross-border crime. To speed up and enhance the effectiveness of legalrelations, the Council has adopted a joint action to facilitate direct contacts among authorities. Anothermeasure intended to serve the same purpose is a proposal currently under discussion to improve judicialassistance procedures, which, however, fails to address key questions. Further steps are absolutelyessential in order to tighten up judicial assistance and extradition procedures.

1. Is the Commission drawing up further measures at the present time to speed up and enhance theeffectiveness of judicial cooperation?

2. Does it know whether steps will be taken in this area in the near future?


(29 September 1998)

Fighting against organised crime is not only a priority of the Austrian Presidency, but a pressing necessityidentified by the Community as such. The Amsterdam European Council in June 1997 endorsed an actionplan to combat organised crime (1), which contains numerous measures and initiatives to be taken within adetermined time schedule, in particular with regard to judicial cooperation. The recommendations of theaction plan are under constant monitoring and a first report on their implementation was submitted at theEuropean Council in Cardiff in June 1998.

Among the measures which were recently adopted, it is worth mentioning the joint action creating aEuropean judicial network (2), the purpose of which is to enable appropriate direct contacts to be set upbetween judicial authorities and other authorities responsible for judicial cooperation and action againstforms of serious crime within Member States, as well as the joint action on good practice in mutual legalassistance in criminal matters, which provides for concrete practical improvements. The Parliament issuedan opinion on all those drafts.

A number of further instruments are under discussion, including a draft joint action on identification,tra-cing, freezing or seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds from crime and a draftconvention on mutual assistance in criminal matters (3), which builds on the 1959 European Conventionand its additional Protocol for enhanced assistance between Member States.

Under the Treaty on European Union, the Commission itself is not entitled to draw up proposals in thefield of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It is however managing the Grotius programme ofincentives and exchanges for legal practitioners (4) which, by developing mutual understanding andfostering mutual confidence, facilitates assistance and cooperation. Moreover, in the perspective of theentry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission issued a communication ‘Towards an area offreedom, security and justice’ (5), in which it set out the issues which in its view should be addressed torealise that goal. The European Council in Vienna will consider the concrete steps and timetable formeeting the objectives set up by the new Title IV of the Treaty.

(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.(2) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998.(3) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998.(4) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.(5) COM(98) 459 final.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Threatened flood of refugees from Kosovo

It appears increasingly unlikely that a diplomatic solution can be found in Kosovo. Europe is consequentlythreatened with a flood of refugees on a comparable scale to the influx from Bosnia-Herzergovina.Appropriate advance planning would do much to simplify the situation in the event of a crisis.

Has the Council already discussed this problem and worked out ways of proceeding that would enable it toact instead of just reacting after the event?

If so, what form are the preparations taking?

If not, does it plan to make the necessary preparations in the near future?

What is the state of progress as regards the action plan on the influx of immigrants from Iraq andneighbouring regions, due to be published in autumn 1998? What specific arrangements will be laid downin that action plan?


by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Kosovo refugees and the EU

In the event that the crisis in Kosovo becomes even more acute, has the Council drawn up any action planspecifying the measures to be taken to deal with the problems arising from an influx of more refugees,particularly into neighbouring countries, two of which are Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2681/98 and P-3049/98

(7/8 December 1998)

The Council is fully aware that the extremely violent offensive of the Serbian security forces against the‘Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)’ has led to a dramatic humanitarian situation. According to the latestdata from UNHCR, there are over 250 000 refugees and internally displaced persons (40 000 inMontenegro, 15 000 in Albania, 2 000 in FYROM). The Council agrees that the prospect of a growingflow of refugees into Western Europe is a real one. While there has been a certain improvement in thehumanitarian situation in Kosovo, following the cessation of hostilities and an increased internationalpresence, the Council remains concerned by the situation of tens of thousands of people who may still bewithout permanent shelter as winter approaches. The EU will continue to deploy substantial resources toalleviate their plight.

The EU has adopted a two-pronged approach to the problem, addressing both its root cause and itshumanitarian fall-out.

On the political level, the EU fully supports the agreements signed in Belgrade on 16 October 1998between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the OSCE, and on 15 October 1998 between theFRY and NATO following the negotiations mandated by the Contact Group on the basis of the relevantUnited Nations Security Council Resolutions, as an important step towards a political solution to theKosovo crisis. It welcomed the adoption on 24 October of UN Security Council Resolution 1203, whichconfers the authority of the United Nations to the demand for full and immediate compliance by all partiesconcerned with these agreements, the unilateral commitments and Security Council Resolutions 1160 and1199. The Council reiterates that there must be full and immediate compliance with Resolution 1203 by allparties concerned.


The Council would emphasise that cooperation with the European Community Monitoring Mission(ECMM) is an integral part of compliance by the FRY with UN Security Council Resolution 1199. Ittherefore expects the authorities of the FRY to grant the ECMM unlimited access to the whole of theRepublic’s territory.

With regard to humanitarian assistance, the EU is making major efforts to help refugees and displacedpersons, not only in Kosovo, but also in Albania. The EU’s aim is to deal with the issue within the region,in order to lessen migratory pressure on EUMember States. Efforts undertaken in close collaboration withthe UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have concentrated on returningrefugees and internally displaced persons to their villages in the framework of the ‘Kinkel-Védrineinitiative’. The EU Presidency has established humanitarian working parties in Belgrade and Geneva toimprove coordination of and support for the efforts being made by the international community and thehumanitarian organisations active in Kosovo for the return of refugees. The main problem, however, isstill the lack of a secure environment for refugee return. At its meeting on 26 October 1998 the Counciltook note of the Presidency’s ten-point Action Plan for the return of refugees and displaced persons, whichwas drawn up on the basis of the information prepared by the EU Special Envoy for Kosovo. TheCommission also decided to supply emergency humanitarian aid, bringing to ECU 44 million the level ofaid provided by the Community and Member States in 1998.

As far as preparations for the future are concerned, plans have already been made to support measures inthe social and education areas intended to establish a climate of confidence and to strengthen civil society,including by means of Community support for the implementation of an agreement on teaching.

With regard to the EU Action Plan on the influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring countries inthe region, adopted by the Council on 26 January 1998, it should be remembered that, in accordance withArticles J.7 and K.6 of the Treaty on European Union, the Presidency of the Council submitted, forinformation, the text of the Action Plan to the European Parliament on 25 February 1998. Since theadoption of the Action Plan, the Council has regularly taken stock of its implementation. At the meeting ofthe Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24 September 1998 it was stressed that the causes of possiblerefugee flows needed to be examined. It was also emphasised that a temporary common system on how todeal with the refugees already present in the Member States should be defined. The Council alsohighlighted the importance of arriving at a common political assessment of the situation in Kosovo, toensure that examination of asylum applications from Kosovo Albanians was conducted in a moreconsistent way in the various Member States.


by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Discharge of untreated sewage in Lisbon

Is the Commission aware that, according to Portuguese press reports, many newly opened waterfrontrestaurants in Lisbon are bypassing the public city sewage system and discharging completely untreatedsewage into the Tagus? What steps will it take to curb this continual pollution of the Tagus Estuary?


(5 October 1998)

Under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, on the treatment of urbanwaste waters (1), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (2) of 27 February 1998, Member Statesmust ensure that sewer systems convey all urban waste waters to water reclamation works for treatmentbefore being discharged into the recipient waters. The final deadline for this is 31 December 1998 in thecase of urban areas having more than 10 000 equivalent inhabitants (an equivalent inhabitant is a unit of


measurement representing the average organic load produced by one person within one day) whose urbaneffluents are discharged into waters that have been identified as sensitive by the Member States. Forconurbations having more than 15 000 equivalent inhabitants whose urban effluents are discharged intowaters that have not been identified as sensitive that deadline is 31 December 2000, while for smallconurbations the relevant date is 31 December 2005.

The Commission is currently checking the criteria used by the Member States, including Portugal, toidentify sensitive areas in terms of water quality. It will for this purpose satisfy itself, in particular, that theclassification of the Tagus estuary conforms, since it has not been identified as a sensitive area by thePortuguese authorities.

The Commission has not been informed of any direct discharges of effluent from several Lisbonrestaurants into the Tagus estuary. It will, in good time check that all conurbations, including Lisbon,comply with the provisions of the directive referred to above with regard to the collection and treatment ofurban waste waters.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.(2) OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.


by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU relations with Turkey and their impact on the trade in hazelnuts

The current strain in relations between the EU and Turkey lies behind measures such as the change to theautonomous tariff quota on hazelnut imports. The new Council Regulation No 1506/98 (1) of 13 July 1998suspends the exemption from import duties for a quota of 9060 tonnes of hazelnuts entering the EUmarketfrom Turkey.

Has the Commission assessed the potential impact on European producers, especially those in the Reusdistrict, should Turkey react to the new regulation by abandoning henceforth the minimum price supportfor hazelnuts of approximately 4 dollars per kilogramme?

(1) OJ L 200, 16.7.1998, p. 1.


(9 October 1998)

As the Honourable Member points out, Council Regulation (EC) 1506/98 of 13 July suspends theautonomous tariff quota on 9 060 tonnes of hazelnuts imported from Turkey. This Regulation is a responseto Turkey’s continuing ban on all imports of beef and live bovines, including those from the Community.

The annual meeting provided for in Decision No 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council took place inReus, Spain, on 10 September. Representatives of the Commission, the Turkish Under-Secretariat ofForeign Trade, Community traders and Turkish hazelnut exporters discussed the hazelnut market and itsprospects.

At the meeting the Turkish authorities told the Commission that they intended to continue their currentpolicy of intervention and price support.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: European definition of heavy goods vehicles

The total authorised loaded weight for heavy goods vehicles in France is subject to a limit of 40 tonnes,whereas the corresponding limit in neighbouring European countries ranges from 44 to as much as50 tonnes.

The European Union has been looking into a common definition of road transport vehicles with a view toharmonising the rules applicable to them in the light of the opening of borders to the transport of goods byroad and establishing the weight, dimensions and environmental standards to which such ‘European’vehicles should conform.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on this matter?


(6 October 1998)

In 1993, the Commission adopted a proposal to harmonise the maximum weights and dimensions oflorries throughout the Community (1) for international and national transport operations.

The proposal contained, inter alia, a maximum weight limit of 44 tons for 6 − axle lorry combinationsfitted with air suspension and a maximum weight limit of 40 tons for 5 − axle lorry combinations.

Whilst certain aspects of the proposal (chiefly those relating to maximum vehicle dimensions for alltransport and weight limits only for international transport) were adopted as Council Directive 96/53/ECof 25 July 1996 (2), there was no agreement in the Council to harmonise maximum vehicle weights fornational transport.

This part of the Commission’s proposal consequently formally remains with the Council for considerationand there are currently no plans to withdraw the proposal.

(1) OJ C 38, 8.2.1994.(2) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.


by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flight safety

Community legislation on flight safety points to the establishment of an independent national agency forthe prevention and investigation of aviation accidents as one of the most effective means of achieving thegoal of flight safety.

The setting up of such a body, made obligatory by an EEC directive which has yet to be implemented byItaly, has become more urgent and necessary as a result of the introduction of free competition betweencarriers. Its establishment should be justified on grounds that attract broad political consensus, preciselybecause everyone has a right to safety.

Can the European Commission say which Member States have yet to implement the directive and does itnot consider that it should prevail upon these Member States to do so?



(9 October 1998)

Five Member States (Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal) have still not fully completedthe transposition process of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing thefundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1).

The Commission has already sent reasoned opinions to these Member States and will decide before theend of the year whether Court referrals are necessary.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care

With regard to the serious problems caused in Italy by the distinction between the register of dentists andthe register of surgeons, in which doctors specialised in dentistry and in odontostomatology are registered,can the Commission say:

1. whether in any Member States other than Italy, doctors practising dentistry belong to the sameprofessional body;

2. whether in France and Luxembourg there are regulations governing ‘activities involving theprevention, diagnosis and treatment of ...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ...’ carried out by dentistswho are not doctors or by doctors (whether or not specialising in stomatology) practising either in thepublic sector or privately, and also whether exceeding any such restrictions on the right to practiseconstitutes a criminal offence or merely an aggravating factor in cases of malpractice?



(1 September 1998)


The so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC (1) and 75/363/EEC (2) regulate, on the basis ofanalogous criteria (mutual recognition and right of establishment) the right to practise, among otherthings, odontostomatology (activities simply involving the treatment of mouth and teeth problems carriedout without restrictions by doctors).

It should be noted that the ‘doctor directives’ do not specify the fields of activity of doctors, only thecriteria for their training. Indeed, no Member State has ever considered it possible to place an anatomicallimit on the scope of the actions of a doctor called upon to treat a patient. Only in Italy has it been deemedthat because the treatment of one part of the body (the teeth, mouth, etc.) has been entrusted to a health-care professional who is not a doctor this should automatically mean that this part of the body must by lawno longer come within a doctor’s sphere of activity.

Can the Commission say whether any Community legislation or precedents exist that may in any way haveimposed some kind of regulatory framework on Member States forcing them explicitly to ban doctorsfrom practising in the areas of the treatment of the mouth and the teeth?

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1.(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14.




(1 September 1998)


Prior to 1980, the year in which the first degree courses in dentistry were introduced (also the year inwhich the EC directives came into force) offering places on a strictly limited and selective basis, in somemedical schools dentistry was regarded as the Cinderella of medical specialisations. It now appears,however, that all the doctors registered on the register of dentists (30 000 in Italy) must be removed on thegrounds that they do not satisfy the requirements of the Community directives.

With reference to the so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC (1) and 75/363/EEC (2) whichregulate the recognition of doctors’ qualifications, their right of establishment and right to practise, amongother things, as specialists in odontostomatology, can the Commission say whether, from a legal point ofview, it meant by this anything other than ‘activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of...(...)... the teeth, mouth, jaws ...’ carried out by doctors?

A precise answer would be appreciated because in Italy the interpretation of this legislation has thepotential to cause unpleasant professional problems and to have harmful repercussions, not least in thelegal sphere.

For the purpose of further clarification, can the Commission also say whether the so-called ‘dentistdirectives’, Directives 78/686/EEC (3) and 78/687/EEC (4) of 25 July 1978, have the legal authority toregulate, directly or indirectly, the activities of doctors in the Member States?

(1) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 1.(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975, p. 14.(3) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.(4) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2698/98, E-2699/98 and E-2700/98

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1998)

According to the information available to the Commission, Spain is the only Member State apart fromItaly where dental practitioners covered by the ‘dentists’ Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC (namely‘licenciados in odontología’) and doctors specialising in stomatology belong to the same professionalbody (‘Colegio de Odontólogos y Estomatólogos’). The Commission wishes to point out, however, thatthe Spanish and Italian situations are not comparable, since in Spain doctors specialising in stomatologybelong exclusively to the above-mentioned professional body, while non-specialist doctors have neverbeen able to practise dentistry as their main activity, since this is prohibited by national legislation. Asregards legislation in France and Luxembourg, the Commission is not aware of any regulations such asthose mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC on dental practitioners, the purpose of which is the creation of aspecific profession of dentist as distinct from that of doctor, group certain activities under the professionaltitle of ‘dental practitioner’. These directives were interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of1 June 1995 in case C-40/93 Commission v Italy (1). It follows from this judgment that, in order to have theright to practise dentistry, the dental practitioner must possess one of the qualifications referred to inArticle 2 of Directive 78/686/EEC, unless expressly covered by the exemption provided for in thedirective − including Article 19 relating to Italy − and that the Member States may on no account createcategories of dental practitioner which do not correspond to any of the categories provided for by thedirectives concerned. Thus the Court ruled that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of 31 October 1988, until the1984/1985 academic year, with regard to diplomas in medicine and surgery, the final date set in Article 19of Directive 78/686/EEC, Italy failed to fulfil its obligations under these directives, since at the time whenDirectives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC obliging Italy to create the specific profession of dentist were


adopted, dentistry was practised in that Member State by doctors. By way of exemption, Article 19 ofDirective 78/686/EEC allows such doctors to continue to practise dentistry and to move to other MemberStates as dental practitioners on the main condition that they began their medical training before 28 January1980. As Community law stands at present, only doctors who began their medical training in Italy before28 January 1980 are covered by Article 19 (on the conditions laid down by this article) and may thuspractise dentistry and move to other Member States as dental practitioners.

Directive 93/16/EEC (2), which consolidates Directives 75/362 and 75/363/EEC, does not specify the fieldof activity of doctors but lays down solely the minimum training criteria. Nor is it the purpose of the‘dentists’ Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC to regulate the activities of doctors. However, thespecial situation of Italy at the time the ‘dentists’ Directives were adopted called for a temporaryderogation (Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC). With regard to the questions on membership ofprofessional bodies, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer to Written QuestionE-1522/96 by Mrs Muscardini (3). The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to the answers toWritten Questions E-1324/95 (4), 836/96 (5), 3592/96 (6), 3593/966 and 1649/97 by Mrs Muscardini (7),which all deal with odontostomatology in Italy.

(1) Reports 1995, pages I-1319.(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.(3) OJ C 356, 25.11.1996.(4) OJ C 277, 23.10.1995.(5) OJ C 280, 25.9.1996.(6) OJ C 186, 18.6.1997.(7) OJ C 391, 23.12.1997.


by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: EU subsidy for school milk

Can the Commission verify that the current level of subsidy for schools in the UK is 11,98 p per pint ofmilk? If so, given the importance of milk as a source of calcium for children, is this an adequate level ofsubsidy or does it need to be reviewed?

Can the Commission confirm what channels primary schools have to use in relation to the InterventionBoard in Reading in the UK in order to access this subsidy? Can the Commission investigate whether thereis an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy in accessing it and if so, how this procedure can be simplified?


(25 September 1998)

Following an adjustment of the United Kingdom green rate on 3 May 1998, the level of subsidy for wholemilk distributed under the Community school milk scheme now amounts to 11,67 pence per pint. Thissubsidy, which amounts to 95 % of the target price for milk, is higher than any other subsidy granted in theframework of the common market organisation for milk and milk products. The Commission is convincedthat this level of subsidy is adequate.

A primary school in the United Kingdom wishing to participate in the scheme should contact theCommunity school milk subsidy scheme section in the intervention board in Reading, which isresponsible for implementing the scheme in the United Kingdom. As regards the practical arrangementsfor the scheme, the Commission’s role is confined to checking their conformity with the existingCommunity legislation. The administrative procedures as such fall under national competence and,therefore, their possible simplification should be discussed with the British authorities in the first instance.



by Françoise Grossetête (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Assessment of the risks of biocidal products

Directive 67/548/EEC (1) establishes a single framework that applies to all chemical substances beforethey are placed on the Community market, if this took place after 10 September 1981. The EuropeanInventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS) lists all the substances that were on themarket between 1 January 1971 and 18 September 1981, and Regulation (EEC) 793/93 (2) enables the risksposed by the substances listed in EINECS to be systematically evaluated and controlled.

Of the 110 000 substances that appear in EINECS, 900 of those listed under the heading ‘active biocidalsubstances’ have been singled out for evaluation using a risk assessment procedure that is entirelydifferent from that set out in Directive 93/67/EEC (3) laying down the principles for assessment of risks toman and the environment of substances notified in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC.

Directive 98/8/EC (4) concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market does not exempt the newactive substances from the requirement that notification should be given of their being placed on themarket, as already stipulated by Directive 67/548/EEC.

In view of the above and also of the European Parliament’s resolution on the report of the group ofindependent experts on simplification of Community legislation and administrative provisions of 4 July1996 (A4-0201/96) (5) and the new Title XIX of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 174(3).

Could the Commission state:

1. Why it considers that the risk assessment for these active biocidal substances cannot be carried out inline with the procedure set out in Directive 93/67/EEC and its technical annexes and how it justifiesthe fact that there are currently two ‘procedures’ for carrying out risk assessments?

2. How it justifies the fact that two requirements concerning the notification of a substance being placedon the market coexist in Community legislation?

(1) OJ L 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.(2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.(3) OJ L 227, 8.9.1993, p. 9.(4) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.(5) OJ C 211, 22.7.1996, p. 23.


(30 October 1998)

Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing ofbiocidal products on the market provides that all biocidal products on the Community market must beauthorised by Member States following a decision taken in accordance with the common principles laiddown in Annex VI of the Directive.

It also provides that only those active substances listed in Annex I or IA (positive lists) can be included inbiocidal products. The decision to include or not to include an active substance in Annex I or IA will bebased upon the evaluation of the risks that it poses to humans and to the environment. This will initially bemade by a Member State rapporteur, but the ultimate decision will be at Community level following theopinion of the standing committee on biocidal products. This is a different process from that foreseen byCouncil Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and admin-istrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, where asubstance is placed on the European market with a notification scheme and with a risk assessment carriedout in only one Member State.


The Commission is developing technical notes for guidance (TNsG) to carry out a comprehensive riskassessment for biocidal active substances and biocidal products. These TNsG are based on the sameprinciples detailed in the technical guidance document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the environment of substancesnotified in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC and Commission Regulation (EC) 1488/94 of28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment ofexisting substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 (1). However, the general natureof the technical guidance document makes it unsuitable as such for the purpose of the biocides Directivedue to the often specific use pattern of biocides, the fact that biocidal active substances are placed on themarket for their ‘cidal’, i.e. killing, effect and that in some cases they are deliberately introduced in theenvironment or in the food processing chain. They also often come in contact with the human population,including non-professional workers and the general public. These aspects have to be carefully consideredin the risk assessment.

The Commission, in accordance with Article 13, paragraph 1 fifth indent of Directive 67/548/EEC, intendsto adopt a measure to exempt active substances for exclusive use as biocides from certain of the provisionsof the Directive, particularly those provisions concerning notification, effective from 13 May 2000 whenDirective 98/8/EC has to be implemented.

(1) OJ L 161, 29.6.1994.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Threat to the peace process in Angola caused by an arms build up

Is the Council prepared to take an unambiguous political stance against the threat to the peace process inAngola caused by an arms build up now that the government in Luanda is launching military attacks fromthe territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Namibia and using the most modern weapons,bought out of Angolan oil revenues, when 60 % of the Angolan population is living below the poverty lineand Angolan troops are still stationed in the neighbouring country of Congo-Brazzaville in order tomaintain the unelected President in power there and literally threatening to liquidate the officialopposition, given that the EU cannot tolerate such conduct within the current political relationship basedon the Convention of Lomé and that it will inevitably be obliged to impose sanctions?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

1. The Council shares the Honourable Member’s deep concern about the deterioration of the politicaland military situation in Angola and the growing risk of a return to war and further widespread sufferingof the Angolan people.

The EU has consistently urged the parties to fulfil the Lusaka Protocol, particularly as regards thedemobilization of all UNITA troops who have not yet been incorporated into the Angolan army.

The Council is of the opinion that the primary cause of the crisis in Angola and of the current impasse inthe peace process, as stated by the UN Security Council in its Resolution 1195 (1998) adopted on15 September 1998, is the failure by the leadership of UNITA to comply with its obligations under the‘Acordos de Paz’, the Lusaka Protocol and relevant Security Council resolutions.


The European Union will therefore continue to call upon the UNITA leadership to comply immediatelyand without conditions with its obligations, in particular the complete demilitarisation of its forces and fullcooperation in the immediate and unconditional extension of State administration throughout the nationalterritory.

In the meantime, recognising the patience shown by the Angolan government, the Union will encouragethe latter to reject military action, to pursue dialogue to resolve the crisis, to refrain from any steps whichcould exacerbate the current situation, and to facilitate the work of the Special Representative of the UNSecretary General.

In the framework of its relations with Angola, the Union remains of course committed to encouraging andsupporting national reconciliation, economic reconstruction and democratisation, on the basis of respectfor the rule of law and good governance (including the transparent and accountable management of all thecountry’s resources for the purpose of equitable and sustainable development).

2. Concerning the crisis in the Great Lakes region, the Union maintains that no lasting peace can beachieved without a political settlement and continues to support the idea of convening an internationalconference, under the joint auspices of the UN and the OAU and enjoying the support of all the States ofthe region, in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the conflicts there.

On the recent crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Union has in particular reiterated itssupport for the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the DRC and its neighbouring countriesand called for a cessation of external interference in that country. It should be noted in this context that theDRC’s invitation to Angolan, Zimbabwean and Namibian troops was not considered inconsistent with UNCharter principles by the UN Security Council, though the Union is of course lending its support only tothose diplomatic initiatives aimed at a peaceful solution.

3. Like the Honourable Member, the European Union remains concerned about the situation in theRepublic of Congo and has condemned any external interference, particularly intervention by foreigntroops, and has asked for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Questions concerning human rights violations in the Netherlands Antilles

1. Is the Council of Ministers aware that the Public Prosecutor in Curaçao has ordered an investigationinto the ill-treatment of prisoners in Koraal Specht Prison?

2. Is the Council of Ministers aware that violent incidents occurred in the high-security wing of KoraalSpecht Prison before warders and members of the riot police intervened?

3. Does the Council of Ministers realise that the manner in which the riot police in the Antillesintervened, which included forcing a group of prisoners to strip naked and, while handcuffed, run thegauntlet back to their cells along a row of warders hitting them with batons, constitutes a serious violationof human rights?

4. Is the Council prepared to ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands for information about these practices,and what does the Council of Ministers intend to do to prevent such conduct from occurring on theterritory of an EU Member State in the future?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The Council is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member’s questions which, in any case, do notcome under the competence of the European Union.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Doubts about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Cuba

1. Is the Council aware that work has been resumed on the construction of a nuclear power plant inJuragua, Cuba, which was begun in 1981 and stopped in 1992, although the building was described asramshackle in a recent report in ‘The Independent’?

2. Is the Council prepared to seek information as to the safety of both the building and the reactorswhich, it is claimed, will be ready to go on stream within four years?

3. What prospects does Cuba’s observer status under the Convention of Lomé offer for the finding of asolution to this issue which will be satisfactory and safe for Cuba in particular and for the region and theworld in general, and is the Council prepared to make use of this new political relationship between the EUand Cuba?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

1. The question raised by the Honourable Member has not been discussed by the Council.

2. In any case, such a question could be discussed in the framework not of Euratom but of theConvention on Nuclear Safety, to which Cuba (having signed the Convention on 20 September 1994) andthe Member States of the EU are party.

The objectives of that Convention are:

i) to achieve and maintain a high level of nuclear safety worldwide through national measures andinternational cooperation;

ii) to establish and maintain effective defences in nuclear installations against potential radiologicalhasards in order to protect individuals, society and the environment from harmful effects ofionizing radiation from such installations;

iii) to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences shouldthey occur.

Article 5 states that ‘each Contracting Party shall submit for review, prior to each meeting referred to inArticle 20, a report on the measures it has taken to implement each of the obligations of this Convention’.

3. Neither the existing Lomé Convention nor the negotiating proposal for a future Lomé Conventioncontain provisions on this matter.

It is also pointed out to the Honourable Member that Cuba’s observer status at the forthcomingnegotiations is without prejudice to any future decision on its accession to the Lomé Convention.


by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Protection of cultural monuments of Kosovo

Large numbers of Orthodox andMuslimmonuments in Kosovo are under serious threat of destruction as aresult of the armed hostilities in the region. Since the EU regards the protection of the cultural heritage of


all peoples as a matter of prime importance and works in close cooperation with Unesco and otherinternational organizations to that end, will the Commission say what initiatives it will take to have themonuments of the region of Kosovo classified as part of the world cultural heritage and protectedaccordingly?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the threat to the cultural heritage monuments in Kosovo due to the armedconflict.

The Commission has no competence to classify cultural heritage monuments in the world heritage list.This is the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation(Unesco) and as the Honourable Member is aware, such an initiative has to be undertaken by theauthorities of the country in question through the diplomatic procedures established by Unesco.


by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Soap containing mercury

Can the Commission inform me if skin-whitening soaps containing mercury are still being produced forexport from the EU? Can the Commission inform me in which Member States the manufacture of thisbanned product continues?


(30 September 1998)

The safety of cosmetic products marketed in the Community is ensured by the provisions of CouncilDirective 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating tocosmetic products (1) (the Cosmetics Directive). The use of mercury and its compounds in cosmeticproducts marketed in the Community is prohibited through the provisions of Annex II, ‘List of substanceswhich must not form part of the composition of cosmetic products’.

The Cosmetics Directive refers to the placing on the market of cosmetic products in the Community. Thereare no provisions that cover the manufacture of cosmetic products for export to third countries. Rather, themarketing of products in third countries is considered a matter for the legislation of the appropriateauthority holding jurisdiction in the country in question.

Further, the Cosmetics Directive does not require the notification of manufacturing sites that produceproducts intended solely for export to third countries. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position toaddress the question of whether skin whitening mercury based soaps are still in production for export fromthe Community.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.



by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: DG XIII’s failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival

In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy ofECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls andrequests for payments the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997.

In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. Therequisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient.

However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombudsman no moneyhas yet been forthcoming.

1. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIIIand excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?

2. Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?

3. What action is the Commission going to take?

4. When does the Commission think it will be paying out the money?


(7 October 1998)

A complaint concerning the case referred to by the Honourable Member has already been made to theEuropean Ombudsman.

The Commission provided a detailed response to an initial request for information by the Ombudsman. Inaddition, following a request for further information by the Ombudsman, the Commission providedfurther details on specific points concerning the subsidy-granting procedure. The Ombudsman has so farnot announced his conclusions.

Since the facts at issue are being examined closely by the European Ombudsman the Commission feelsthat the Ombudsman¢s conclusions should be awaited before any possible follow-up work in this areas isexamined.


by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Religious persecution in Sudan

Will the Commission protest in the strongest possible terms to the government of the Republic of Sudanover that country’s continuing persecution of people who convert to the Christian faith?

Its attention should be drawn particularly to the cases of Faisal Abdallah, Ahmad Abdulraham and Al FakiKuku Hassan, all converts from Islam who have been imprisoned and against whom charges of subversionhave been made, simply as a pretext to persecute them for their faith.



(21 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the continuous persecution by Sudan of people accused of apostasy andremains concerned about the lack of basic human rights such as the denial of religious freedom by theSudanese government, which seeks to impose its version of Islam on the population.

Although the government has stated that all religions should be respected and that freedom of worship isensured, in practice the government treats Islam, the religion of the majority, as the de facto state religionand has declared that Islam must inspire the country’s laws, institutions and policies. While non-Muslimsmay convert to Islam, the 1991 Criminal Act makes apostasy (which includes conversion to anotherreligion) by Muslims a punishable offence. Authorities continue to restrict the activities of non-Muslims,and further incidents of harassment and arrest for religious beliefs and activities have been reported.

Through its delegation in Khartoum, the Commission is currently investigating in close contact withMember States the situation of Messrs. Faisal Abdallah, Ahmad Abdulraham and Al Faki Kuku Hassan.

On several occasions, the Union has called on the government of Sudan to respect human rights andhumanitarian law in all parts of Sudan, in particular to allow unimpeded access for aid agencies, monitorsand international observers and to investigate alleged violations promptly, publish their findings andpunish offenders.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Battery cages

Will the Commission draw up proposals to phase out the use of battery cages for laying hens and introducea system of mandatory egg labelling to enable consumers to be aware of the conditions under which thehens which laid the eggs have been kept?


(24 September 1998)

The Commission has recently presented a proposal to the Council which lays down minimum standardsfor the protection of laying hens in various systems of rearing, including cages (1). The proposal ispresently under discussion in the Council and has been sent to the Parliament for an opinion.

The new requirements would, if adopted as proposed, apply to newly built or rebuilt systems from1 January 1999 and from 1 January 2009 for all housing systems. As a general rule under the new proposalhens should be housed in a system which allows nesting, dustbathing and perching. Member States may,however, authorise derogations from dustbathing and nesting in order to permit the use of battery cages,provided that the hens have a minimum area of 800 cm2 per hen.

The Commission intends to amend the existing Community egg-labelling legislation (Council Regulation(EEC) 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs; Commission Regulation (EEC)1274/91 of 15 May 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1907/90 on certainmarketing standards for eggs (2)) to ensure that all table eggs produced in the Community are labelled.These provisions will be voluntary for third countries. With this system of labelling it would be possible


for consumers to distinguish table eggs produced in the Community and those produced in third countriesand to be aware of the conditions under which the hens have been kept. With this system of labelling it isthen up to the European consumers to choose the type of table eggs they prefer.

(1) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.(2) OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.



(1 September 1998)

Subject: Asbestos

Will the Commission urgently draw up proposals for a total ban on the import and manufacture ofchrysotile (white) asbestos in view of the grave risk to health posed by the use of this substance which,together with other forms of asbestos, is responsible for the deaths of more than 3500 people every year inthe United Kingdom alone?


(30 September 1998)

There already exists a significant body of Community legislation which aims to protect the health ofworkers and the public from the health effects of asbestos. All types of asbestos fibres, except white (orchrysotile) asbestos, are already banned by current Community legislation. In addition, there is a ban onfourteen categories of products containing chrysotile and strict Community controls on exposure ofworkers to asbestos and on release of asbestos fibres to the environment.

Even though much has already been accomplished, it is apparent that more now needs to be done to tightenup the Community legislation on the marketing and use of asbestos-containing products. There are nownine Member States which have introduced national bans on chrysotile which go beyond the currentCommunity legislation. This represents a significant disruption to the internal market which requires asolution at Community level.

Also, various national organisations, including the Health and safety executive in the United Kingdom,have made very disturbing projections about the numbers of deaths which are likely to be attributable toasbestos over the next few decades. However, it is important to note that these figures relate to pastexposures to mixed asbestos types, including the fibres which have already been banned. It would bewrong to use these statistics alone to justify a ban on the marketing and use of chrysotile because such aban would not lead to a lower risk of exposure for workers to asbestos which is already in place, nor wouldit reduce the number of deaths which are occurring today as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Possiblecontamination from asbestos in existing buildings (e.g. in relation to maintenance activities and asbestosremoval operations) will remain an important cause of exposure to workers for many years.

However, taking all the above into account, based on current scientific knowledge about the health risks ofchrysotile asbestos, the Commission is preparing a draft proposal for a European-wide ban on chrysotileasbestos (with some exceptions and temporary derogations), which will be discussed with Member Stateexperts in the near future. The details of the final draft will of course depend on those discussions, and oncontacts with the Parliament, interest groups and on the outcome of continuing scientific considerations.



by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Council

(8 September 1998)

Subject: Lebanese prisoners in Syria

What pressure has the Council brought to bear in negotiating the Euro-Mediterranean AssociationAgreement with Syria, or under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to secure the release by theSyrian Government of the 250 Lebanese detainees still held in its prisons?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

1. The standard clause on human rights is included in the negotiating directives for an AssociationAgreement with Syria. The clause, which states that relations between parties will be based on respect forthe democratic principles and fundamental human rights which guide their internal and internationalpolicy, constitutes an essential element of the agreement. The negotiations with Syria were opened in April1998 and the second round of negotiations took place on 20-21 October 1998. The Council follows closelyall aspects related to the negotiations.

2. Syria is also a signatory of the Barcelona Declaration in which the participants undertook to act inaccordance with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as with otherobligations under international law; and to develop the rule of law and democracy in their politicalsystems.

3. The Council is following closely the question of Lebanese detainees in Syria. It noted that on 5 May1998, 121 detainees had been liberated by the Syrian authorities.

4. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to employ all means at itsdisposal, of a formal or informal nature, to invite the Syrian authorities to abide by the rules of law andjustice so as to allow the liberation of all prisoners unjustly detained.


by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Inward investment agreements with car manufacturers

Can the Commission comment on whether or not it is legal for Member States to enter into inwardinvestment agreements with car manufacturers that result in car prices in such Member States becomingartificially inflated compared to the rest of Europe?


(28 October 1998)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the question submitted by the Honourable Member, asit has not been informed about such investment agreements. As for the analysis of car price differencesacross the Community, the Commission is sending its bi-annual publication on car prices direct to theHonourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

In this context, the Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to WrittenQuestion E-2577/98 by Mrs Anita Pollack (1).

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 150.




(1 September 1998)

Subject: Novel Foods Regulation (EC) 258/97 − authorisation of varieties

1. Is it true that, if genetically modified plants are registered in the common catalogue of varieties ofagricultural plant species (70/457/EEC) (1) and of vegetable seed (70/458/EEC) (2), no further approval isrequired for these plants under the Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) (3)?

2. If that is the case, will only the labelling of such plants be covered by the Novel Foods Regulation?

3. In future, will transgenic plants still require any authorisation and approval apart from registration inthe common catalogue of varieties?

4. Is it true that all plant products which are authorised as varieties will no longer need to undergo anynotification procedure or the simplified authorisation procedure under the Novel Foods Regulation?

5. If so, will any products processed from such plants require authorisation under the Novel FoodsRegulation?

6. Will secondary products of plants already covered by variety authorisation need to be individuallynotified, tested and authorised under the Novel Foods Regulation?

7. Will secondary products which contain only a small percentage of plant products requiringauthorisation need separate authorisation (e.g., tomato concentrate on ready-made pizzas)?

I find totally unacceptable the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-2113/97 to E-2121/97 (4). Not a single question has been answered. The Commission has simply referred to legal acts ofwhich I am also aware. The Commission must, however, realise that the text of the legal acts does notprovide the answer to my questions. I would therefore ask the Commission to stop prevaricating and givespecific answers to my questions.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 1.(2) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7.(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.(4) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 11.


(16 October 1998)

1. At present, the varieties covered by Directive 70/457/EEC on the common catalogue of varieties ofagricultural plant species and Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed must be registeredin the catalogue of varieties whether or not they are genetically modified (GMOs), with a view to theplacing on the market of seeds or plants within the Community. Before they can be registered, evidencemust be provided that they are distinct, stable and sufficiently uniform, and, with regard to varieties ofagricultural plant species, that they will be of satisfactory value for cultivation and use.

Varieties based on GMOs are also subject to a special authorization under a separate procedure followingan assessment of the risks they could pose to human health and the environment within the meaning ofCouncil Directive 90/220/EEC (1) on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modifiedorganisms.


Moreover, since 15 May 1997, any food or food ingredient derived from a transgenic variety which hadnot been consumed in significant quantities in the Community at that time, has had to conform with theprocedures of Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients before it can beplaced on the market.

2. Seeds and plants of transgenic varieties are labelled in accordance with the provisions of Directives70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC respectively, and in accordance with the terms of Annex III to Directive90/220/EEC which states that any product containing or comprising GMOs, which is the case withtransgenic varieties, must be labelled as such.

Foods or food ingredients based on transgenic varieties are subject to the labelling requirements underArticle 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 which stipulates that the consumer must be informed of:

− any characteristic or food property such as composition, nutritional value or nutritional effects, or theintended use of the food which renders a novel food or food ingredient no longer equivalent to anexisting food or food ingredient. A novel food or food ingredient shall be deemed to be no longerequivalent if scientific assessment, based upon an appropriate analysis of existing data, candemonstrate that the characteristics assessed are different in comparison with a conventional foodor food ingredient, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics.In this case, the labelling must indicate the characteristics or properties modified, together with themethod by which that characteristic or property was obtained;

− the presence in the novel food or food ingredient of material which is not present in an existingequivalent foodstuff and which gives rise to ethical concerns or may have implications for the healthof certain sections of the population;

− the presence of a GMO must be declared on the label.

3. The Commission has presented a proposal for an amendment of Directive 70/457/EEC on thecommon catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species and Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing ofvegetable seed in line with the principle of a ‘one-stop shop’. Parliament gave an opinion on the proposalin its July 1997 plenary session.

The principle of the ‘one-stop shop’ establishes a link between different Community instruments in thefield of biotechnology and also provides for a limitation of evaluations in the framework of sectorallegislation (for example Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC or the Novel Foods Regulation) bytaking account of any evaluations carried out under horizontal legislation (for example Directive90/220/EEC) without having to repeat them.

In future, when Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC are amended in line with the abovementionedprinciple, the evaluation of environmental risks within the meaning of Directive 90/220/EEC posed bytransgenic varieties of species covered by the Directives will be carried out in connection with registeringthe varieties in the catalogue.

4. and 5. The amendment referred to under point 3 above also means that the placing on the market offoods or food ingredients produced from transgenic varieties and intended for use as foods or foodingredients within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 258/97 could be authorized under that Regulation, orunder the procedure of Directives 70/457/EEC and 70/458/EEC for establishing that a food is harmless,similar to that already provided for in Regulation (EC) 258/97. In the latter case, and once all theevaluations (agricultural, environmental, harmlessness of food) have been carried out, the registration ofthe variety will authorize its cultivation, but also the processing and consumption of foods or foodingredients derived from it.

6. Derived products are subject to Regulation (EC) 258/97.

7. No, provided the vegetable products requiring authorization were authorized.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.



by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(8 September 1998)

Subject: European volunteer year for young people

Does the Council see the serving of a European volunteer year as a possible alternative to the military andcivilian service obligations in the Member States? What steps is the Council taking in this respect?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will recall that it is for each Member State to determine whether any periods ofvoluntary service would or would not be considered as an alternative to legal obligations for military orcivilian service. It is moreover stated in the decision of the European Parliament and Council establishingthe Community action programme ‘European Voluntary Service for Young People’ (1) that ‘Europeanvoluntary service activities are not a substitute for military service, for the alternative service formulaeprovided in particular for conscientious objectors or for the compulsory civilian service existing in severalMember States’.

The Council notes that during the conciliation procedure the Commission undertook to prepare a study onthe current situation in regard to this question, which it looks forward to with interest.

(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998, p. 1.


by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(7 September 1998)

Subject: Cohesion Fund − sewage treatment projects in Thessaloniki

The projects Nos. 94/09/61/010 and 94/09/61/043 entitled ‘Enlargement and completion of sewage-treatment installations for Thessaloniki − stage II’ and ‘Completion of the sewerage treatment plant in thetourist area of Thessaloniki’ were included under the projects financed from the Cohesion Fund in 1995.

According to a Communication from the Commission (1), the operational phase of the first project is tobegin in 1999, whereas the second project was due to be completed by 31 December 1996. Bearing in mindthat:

− the Greek authorities notified the Commission in May 1997 that work on the construction of theThessaloniki sewage treatment installations was complete and that they were currently at the teststage;

− under the terms of project No 94/09/61/010, the Greek authorities have undertaken to expand thesewer network and link up the industrial area to it, and to monitor the quality of industrial effluent;

− it is absolutely vital to complete the projects to clean up the Thermaic Gulf so as to protect the marineecosystem from uncontrolled daily discharges of 150 000 m3 of urban sewage and 60 000 m3 ofindustrial effluent.


1. what stage has been reached in the construction of the installations and when they are due to becompleted?

2. what contribution the Community has made and what amounts have so far been spent on each of theprojects mentioned?


3. whether there have been delays in completing these projects and, if so, why?

4. what difficulties and shortcomings have arisen in the construction of the installations, if any, and whatmeasures will be taken to ensure that the funds allocated are used for the completion of the projects?

5. which of the other undertakings given by the Greek Government in connection with project 94/09/61/010 have been met?

(1) OJ C 244, 22.8.1996.


(5 October 1998)

The project ‘Completion of the sewerage treatment plant in the tourist area of Thessaloniki’ was finishedon schedule and the plant has been in operation since February 1997. Community funding for the projecttotalled ECU 2,7 million, 80 % of which has been paid. The balance will be paid once the Greek authoritieshave submitted a formal request.

The project ‘Enlargement and completion of sewage-treatment installations for Thessaloniki, stage II’ is inprogress. So far, one fifth of all the works have been carried out. Those relating specifically to sewagetreatment are 35 % complete, so that it will soon be possible to treat more than 60 000 m3 of sewage a day.The under-sea conduit is 15 % complete and the plant improvement works have just started. According tothe Greek authorities, the project will be finished at the end of 1999.

The project has been granted Community funding totalling ECU 59,3 million, of which ECU 13,8 millionhave been paid and ECU 12,5 million will be paid on submission of a request by the Greek authorities.

Construction work for the project was delayed while various essential studies were carried out. To theCommission’s knowledge, no defects have been found so far.

As for the undertakings given by the Greek authorities, the waters of the Thermaic Gulf are beingmonitored by research programmes, screening of industrial effluent will be supplemented if necessary,and the sewer network management plan will shortly be put out to tender. Once the stage II installationshave been completed, the industrial estate will be connected to the system − thereby ensuring thatindustrial effluent is monitored.


by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: The ca. 3 000 Europeans detained in foreign jails

The European organisation ‘Fair Trials Abroad’ reports that some 3 000 European citizens are being heldin prisons in third countries.

Most European prisoners, it says, are held in Morocco (472), the USA (470), Australia (176), Thailand(170), Brazil (146), Venezuela (133), Switzerland (102), Ecuador (74), Colombia (64) and India (63).Some 125 people are in prison in Russia and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. A furtherca. 1 500 persons are in prisons in various developing countries.


1. Is there any form of cooperation at European level which ensures a fair trial and reasonable treatmentin prison for these people, or is there any form of consultation between the EUMember States with regardto prisoners jailed in the same country?

2. Does the Commission play a coordinating role in this respect, for example through the local EUambassadors?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of Commission

(22 October 1998)

The Union is concerned with the situation in prisons throughout the world, particularly where thedetention conditions of nationals of its Member States are involved. Where it considers that the situationjustifies action under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), it can make representations to theauthorities of the countries concerned.

Furthermore, under Article 8c of the Treaty on European Union and a Council Decision of 19 December1995, every citizen of the European Union living or staying in a non-member country is entitled to theconsular protection of any Member State’s diplomatic or consular representation in that country.

The Council’s group on consular matters closely monitors the issue of EU citizens imprisoned in non-member countries.



(14 September 1998)

Subject: The imprisonment of Petrus Hariyanto in Indonesia

Amnesty International has drawn attention to the Indonesian student Petrus Hariyanto who is serving aneight-year sentence in Cipinang prison in Indonesia because he was one of the co-founders of the politicalparty PRD.

As far as is known, he has never been guilty of violence; nor has he ever propagated it.

Will the Commission ask the Indonesian authorities if this political detainee can be released, now that thegovernment has adopted a more democratic stance?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

The Commission regularly calls on the Indonesian authorities to release all political prisoners in Indonesiaand will continue to do so. So far, only a limited number of political prisoners have been released, withmany still remaining in prison.

Petrus Hariyanto, one of the leaders of the political party PRD, was sentenced to eight years in jail in 1997under the anti-subversion law. Although PRD is no longer a prohibited political party, Mr Hariyanto andthe other imprisoned PRD leaders have not yet been released.

The Commission will continue to include Petrus Hariyanto among the list of political prisoners whoserelease is urged upon the Indonesian government.




(14 September 1998)

Subject: Political detainees in Vietnam

Is the Commission aware that hundreds of political detainees are still in prison in Vietnam?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Vietnamese government for information on the followingdetainees: Nguyen Dinh Huy, Pham Tuong, Bui Kim Dinh, Pham Thai Nguyen Ngoc Tan, Dong Tuy,Nguyen Van Chau and Nguyen Van Bien?

Is the Commission prepared to ask the Vietnamese government to release all political detainees?


(14 October 1998)

The Commission is not only aware of the detention of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam (a recentAmnesty International report puts their number at 70) but is, together with Member States, pursuing thematter actively. A list of prisoners of conscience (referred to as the Union list hereafter) has been drawn upand presented on several occasions, through Troika demarches, to the government of Vietnam.

Following the demarches by the Commission, Member States and like-minded countries, the governmentamnestied 5219 prisoners on 2 September 1998. An overwhelming number were common law detainees,but six of them were on the Union list. Furthermore, the Commission has grounds to believe that therelease of some 3 000 more detainees is being prepared, and it hopes that more people on the Union listwill be included.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Mr Dong Tuy was already released on 2 September1998. All the others, with the exception of Mr Pham Thai Nguyen, are part of the Union list and their caseswill be followed closely.

The Commission, in close coordination with the Member States, will continue its action until the fullrelease of all prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.


by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(9 September 1998)

Subject: Presidential elections in Togo

In connection with the presidential elections in Togo, the Commission funded media observation projectsby Reporters Without Frontiers (RSF) in the sum of ECU 110 000, and an electoral observation missioncoordinated by Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS) to the tune of ECU 560 000.

In funding these projects from heading B7-7020, lacking a legal basis, the Commission felt free to ignore anumber of rules.

Is this why, in its reply of 24 July 1998 to Written Question P-2187/98 (1), the Commission says that ‘theprojects were submitted by the bodies in question and were approved in accordance with the arrangementsappropriate to the management of this budget heading’?

Does this mean that ECU 560 000 were allocated to ERIS and ECU 110 000 to RSF without any selectionprocedure being used?

If there was no selection procedure, and since these two organisations were well-known to be close to theTogolese opposition, how does the Commission justify taking this politically sensitive decision?

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 132.



(28 September 1998)

The use of budget appropriations for those headings still without a legal basis is subject to the stringentprovisions of the Financial Regulation that governs the budget as a whole. The projects cited by theHonourable Member are a case in point. The Commission is therefore unable to accept the contention thatit felt ‘free to ignore a number of rules’.

The budget heading funds projects submitted by partners: non-governmental organisations, associationsor international organisations. After examination and appraisal, projects satisfying the criteria laid downfor the heading’s use are the subject of a formal decision by the Commission under the financial rules inforce.

The Commission would also point out, as emphasised in its answer to Question 2187/98, that the twoprojects cited by name formed part of a coherent programme of support for the electoral process. Theprogramme was set up at the request of the national authorising officer, in accordance with Parliament’sresolution of November last year on Togo and on the basis of requests from a number of partners.

The Commission believes that the activities it financed contributed to the success of the elections. It alsobelieves that the partners who carried them out worked with efficiency and without bias.



(17 September 1998)

Subject: European-wide leagues

What does the Commission intend to do to encourage the formation of European-wide leagues in varioussports?


(16 November 1998)

Most major sports federations have long been organising European competitions. Football, for instance,has the champions league and basketball the European league. If the Honourable Member’s question isabout the creation of European leagues outside the federations, the Commission is not planning anyparticular action to encourage such moves. This is a matter for the sports organisations. The Commissionhas neither a legal basis nor the political interest to interfere. Nevertheless, the Commission stresses theimportance of keeping real solidarity between elite and grass roots sport. Furthermore, where the rules oractions of existing or new sports organisations fall within the scope of the competition rules of the ECTreaty, the Commission has the duty to ensure that these rules are respected.


by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Financing of the UCK

Despite all their verbal pledges, Albanian politicians in Kosovo have so far displayed little genuinereadiness to enter into a dialogue with the Serbian and Yugoslav authorities and seek a peaceful solution tothe conflict. A serious obstacle here is the attitude of the UCK (the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army),


which within the past few days has expressed its intention of continuing the armed struggle until finalvictory is achieved. The UCK’s political leader, Mr Adem Demaci, refuses to join an Albanian delegationto engage in negotiations.

So long as the UCK feels able to continue the armed struggle, it will not only itself continue to sabotage theattempts of the international community to bring about a negotiated settlement but also place politicalleaders in Kosovo under pressure not to take part in any talks.

The UCK is largely dependent on financial support from so-called ‘humanitarian’ organisations in manycountries of the Union. This is used to purchase weapons and to recruit and train personnel. The moneyobtained by these organisations comes largely from Albanians resident in countries of the Union who arecompelled to contribute a percentage of their income.

Can the Commission say:

1. what organisations in which countries of the Union are suspected of being in contact with the UCK?

2. what measures have been taken or are under preparation to halt both the collection of money underpressure and its transfer to the UCK, in order to give a clear signal to the latter that any continuation ofthe violence is rejected?


(20 October 1998)

While difficulties have been experienced in persuading either the Serbian authorities or the representativesof the Kosovar Albanians to enter into dialogue with each other, efforts are continuing to that end.

The Commission does not have information on organisations suspected of being involved in the financingof the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). It does not believe, however, as mentioned by the HonourableMember, that any reputable humanitarian organisations, national or international, are involved in any way.

There is a general embargo on the supply to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of arms or equipmentwhich might be used for terrorism or police repression. No measures have been taken at Community levelin order to halt the financing of the KLA. One Member State has indicated its intention unilaterally toimplement measures to stem fund-raising or arms purchases, in its territory, by the KLA.


by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Refugees in Kosovo

Many people have fled from their homes because of the fighting in Kosovo. Some of them −representatives of humanitarian organisations put the figure at ‘maybe 50 000’, albeit without beingany more specific − are currently bivouacking in the open air.

The following aspects call for comment:

− The Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) is trying to prevent Albanian refugees from returning to theirvillages; columns of refugees returning under police escort are sometimes fired on.

− In mid-August, Mr Ibrahim Rugova, who is accepted by the international community as the leader ofthe Albanians, initially advised the refugees against returning to their homes. Later he qualified hisadvice and said that people could return, but only ‘under the escort of international organisations’.


− Albanian newspapers have refused to publish an advertisement in which the Serbian Ministry of theInterior called on refugees, in Albanian, to return to their homes.

Does not the Commission agree that it is unacceptable to use the plight of refugees as a means of exertingpolitical pressure or influencing public opinion?

Will the Commission urge the leaders of the Albanians to help make it possible for the refugees to return totheir homes as soon as possible, in cooperation with the authorities and, where necessary, underinternational escort?


(21 October 1998)

Over 280 000 people are now displaced from their homes in Kosovo. Some 200 000 are displaced withinKosovo, of whom the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) has estimated that 50 000could be without access to shelter. Figures can only be estimated given the difficulties in locating thosedisplaced, and because many of them have been displaced more than once.

The Commission is very much in favour of the rapid and safe return to their homes of all of the refugeesand displaced people, particularly those forced to live in the open. However, with continuing Serboffensives, a steadily worsening security situation and increased targeting of civilians, widespread returnis not likely at this time. The threat to their security which caused civilians to leave their homes in the firstplace remains, the deliberate destruction of their homes and livestock continues, and they are notconvinced that it is safe to return. Serbian forces have already attacked three of the eleven ‘return sites’designated by the Serbian Government.

As winter has already begun in the mountains, the most urgent task is not the promotion of organisedreturns to areas where the conditions for return have not yet been met, but rather the establishment of localdistribution networks for humanitarian assistance in order to avoid a human disaster.

However, the prerequisite for organised safe returns is a credible ceasefire, which would facilitate thework of aid agencies and convince those who are displaced to return to their homes.



(17 September 1998)

Subject: Unsuitable methods used by the British Museum to conserve the Elgin Marbles

According to press reports, irreparable damage was caused in the past to the Elgin Marbles in the BritishMuseum as a result of conservation methods which were known even at the time to be unsuitable.

Since the Acropolis and its marbles form part of the European cultural heritage referred to in the Treaty,what steps will the Commission take to persuade the British Government to allow international experts toexamine the damage suffered by the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum as a result of unsuitableconservation methods?


(30 September 1998)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that the Parthenon of the Acropolis and itssculptures form an integral and invaluable part of the European cultural and architectural heritage. It iscertainly in this spirit and context that the Commission has, since 1983, supported financially, on anannual basis, the protection, conservation and restoration of the Acropolis monuments.


The Commission does not have in its possession any official information about the alleged damage causedto the Parthenon sculptures situated in the British Museum due to ‘unorthodox’ preservation methods.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission acting on the principle of subsidiarity and in thecontext of Article 128 of the EC Treaty, which mandates the Community to encourage cooperationbetween Member States in the field of cultural heritage conservation and enhancement, is prepared tosupport an initiative, such as suggested by the Honourable Member, provided that it is submitted jointly bythe authorities concerned, i.e. the British Museum and the Hellenic Archaeological Service, within theframework of the Raphael programme.



(17 September 1998)

Subject: Disastrous fires in Greece

In July and August 1998, the forests of Greece were ravaged by fires which lay waste hundreds of hectaresof woodland throughout the country, destroying the last remaining green areas in Attica. Most of the fireswere attributed to acts of arson, while accusations were made against at least one Turkish secret serviceagent, who abruptly flew out of Greece for the Netherlands after he was located by the Greek media.

This appalling disaster, which affected the whole of Greece, has plunged the inhabitants of the burned outareas into despair; their property (houses, cars etc.) also suffered extensive damage owing to theauthorities’ inability to extinguish the fires.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. what possibilities there are of Commission funding for reafforestation of the regions affected andrestoration of the environment,

2. whether it is possible to use Structural Fund resources for the above purposes,

3. whether the Community environmental protection initiatives under the Cohesion Fund can be used forthose purposes,

4. whether the Community’s URBAN initiative can contribute towards restoring the environment in theareas affected, and

5. whether it has information about the activities of third countries’ agents on EU territory and whataction it intends to take to trace them (through EUROPOL and the Schengen Information System) andinvestigate their involvement in acts of arson in Greece?


(23 October 1998)

As already stated in its reply to Written Question E-2437/98 (1) from the Honourable Member, theCommission is well informed about the serious fires in Greece this summer. It is fully alive to the need toprotect Europe’s forests, half of which are classed as fire risk zones. The Community scheme for theprotection of forests against fire, adopted by the Council in 1992 and prolonged by Council Regulation(EC) 308/97 of 17 February 1997 (2), gives tangible form to the Community’s commitment to forest fireprevention.


The general protection plan presented by Greece for the purposes of the scheme, in effect a formalstatement of its national forest fire prevention measures, covers action in a number of areas (publicawareness, preventive infrastructure, preventive sylviculture, forest surveillance) in collaboration with therelevant partners, including the rural population. Over the period 1992-98 the Commission has grantedECU 18 million for 79 Greek projects in realisation of this general plan through action of the above types.A general assessment of the impact of the scheme and of the specific problems of the countries concernedshould be possible in the near future using the data provided by the Community information system onforest fires set up under the 1992 Regulation.

The Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund has a budget ofECU 176,4 million for forestry measures under regional operational programmes for the period 1994 to1999. These measures include reconstitution of burnt forest and protection of land against erosion. If theGreek authorities wish to reafforest certain areas affected by the recent fires they can do so under theprovisions in force by redeploying funds provided enough remain available.

In 1994 the Commission granted ECU 12 million from the Cohesion Fund for forest and soil protectionand reafforestation. At the moment it is examining a request for ECU 31,5 million from the Cohesion Fundfor surveillance and fire control facilities for Greek forests.

The locations selected for assistance under the Urban Initiative are densely populated urban zones thatshould not be affected by forest fires.

National security action taken against the activities of third-country intelligence agents operating onMember States’ territories are a matter for the latter. The Commission does not hold information on theactivities of agents of non-EU countries and is not involved in any anti-terrorist action that may be carriedout by other authorities.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 146.(2) OJ L 51, 21.2.1997.


by Leo Tindemans (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Phare policy: protection of the interests of European experts

How can European experts working on Phare projects assert their interests against their principals in theevent of differences of opinion about the implementation of a project?

Under the principle of decentralised implementation, responsibility for the implementation of pro-grammes is borne by the authorities of the Phare countries and the Commission’s delegations.

If a difference of opinion arose between the authorities in the country concerned and the Europeancontractor, one would normally expect the European contractor to be able to ask the Commissiondelegation to act on his behalf in seeking to arrive at a satisfactory solution to enable the implementationof the project to proceed.

However, experience in Romania and Bulgaria shows that the delegations there entrust the monitoring ofPhare projects to local officials who are not willing to intervene in disputes with their colleagues in thenational administrations, while European officials at the delegation do not see it as their job to do anythingabout the situation. Officials at the Commission’s DG IA are not willing to intervene, either. Thus in theevent of misunderstandings, European experts face a wall of incomprehension and helplessness. Yetmisunderstandings about the implementation of programmes are not so uncommon.


In the Commission’s view, who can be instructed to mediate between a European contractor and theauthorities on the spot? Would it not be appropriate for either the Commission itself or the Phareadministration to assume this task?


(21 October 1998)

The Commission has transferred the contracting authority for nearly all Phare projects to partnercountries. In this decentralised system, a national implementing authority, such as a programmemanagement unit, enters into a contract with consultants. The Commission has no legal relationshipwith the consultant. If disagreement on the implementation of the contract arises between the consultantand the implementing authority, it is to be settled according to the procedures established in the contractbetween these two parties.

Normally, problems arising in implementation of a project should be addressed by the two contractingparties. However, where problems persist, the consultants should contact, while respecting theircontractual obligations, the relevant Commission delegation or the Commission’s Joint relex servicefor the management of Community aid to non-member countries. The Commission will seek to interveneinformally with both parties, where resources allow, to help achieve the objectives of the projects whilerespecting the autonomy of the partner country to manage projects entrusted to it.


by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(18 September 1998)

Subject: Gender mainstreaming at meetings of the Council

1. How is the Commission’s principle of gender mainstreaming implemented at meetings of theCouncil?

2. Do the Ministers for Women’s Affairs or their nominated representatives attend the meetings of thedifferent Councils (transport, energy, etc.)?

3. If not, why not, or is gender mainstreaming just so much waste paper?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that under the first paragraph of Article 146 of theTreaty establishing the European Community and the corresponding Articles in the other Treaties, theCouncil consists of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit thegovernment of that Member State. Within each Government, women holding the offices corresponding tothe particular Council meeting do, of course, attend.

The representatives of the Member States may moreover raise questions concerning gender mainstream-ing policy at any time on the occasion of discussions by the Council and its preparatory bodies.

Finally, the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that Article 3 of the EC Treaty as amendedby the Amsterdam Treaty provides that in all the Community’s activities, it will aim to eliminateinequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women.




(17 September 1998)

Subject: Salary of the President of the ECB

According to press reports neither the President of the ECB, Mr Duisenberg, nor the other ECB staff knowwhat their salaries will be.

1. Will the Commission state the precise salaries of ECB staff?

2. If not, what are the reasons for withholding this information from EU citizens and for breaching theprinciple of transparency?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1998)

Under the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the EuropeanCentral Bank (ECB), the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board, inparticular their salaries, pensions and other social security benefits, are to be the subject of contracts withthe ECB. They are to be fixed by the Governing Council on a proposal from a committee comprising threemembers appointed by the Governing Council and three members appointed by the Council. The membersof the Executive Board do not have the right to vote on these matters (Article 11.3. of the Statute).Regarding ECB staff, their conditions of employment, in particular their salaries, pensions and othersocial security benefits, are to be laid down by the Governing Council, on a proposal from the ExecutiveBoard (Article 36.1.).

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the salaries of ECB staff and of members of theExecutive Board since it has no power to fix their terms and conditions of employment.


by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Floods in China

The recent floods in China caused when the Yangtze river burst its banks have left more than 3 000 peopledead and destroyed 5 million homes, affecting more than 230 million people. The total damage is put ataround ECU 18 billion due to the destruction of cultivated land, infrastructure, school buildings andmaterials, industrial installations, housing etc.

What contribution has the Commission made to international aid in the form of food, medical products,educational material and emergency aid? Will the Commission continue its assistance in the comingmonths?

What is the initial, perhaps provisional assessment of the damage caused, particularly as regards theenvironment?


(21 October 1998)

The extensive and continous rains of the last five months in China have caused serious flooding that isnow affecting an estimated 223 million people in 29 provinces in central, south east, and northern China.The Yangtze River has reached record levels and in many areas the floods are being described as the worstin living memory.


According to the latest official figures more than 5 000 people have been killed, 5 million houses havebeen destroyed and some 14 million people have been left homeless. In total, 21 million hectares of landhave been flooded and 5 million hectares of crops have been destroyed.

On 6 August 1998, the Commission adopted an emergency decision of ECU 605 000. These fundschannelled through the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) enable two relief projects to beimplemented by the International federation of red cross and MSF Holland. These projects are targetingsome of the worst affected areas and addressing the needs of food security, medical assistance andemergency relief (water sanitation and temporary shelter).

Because of the magnitude of the disaster, humanitarian needs are still enormous despite the national andinternational response to the disaster. Therefore, a second emergency decision of an amount ofECU 1 050 000 has recently been adopted by the Commission. The project will be implemented by theInternational federation of the red cross and will focus on the same objectives.

Due to the size of the disaster and given the anticipated worsening of the situation, the Commission hassent a field correspondent to China to monitor its projects and the humanitarian situation. The Commissionwill continue to evaluate and address humanitarian needs in China.


by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Sun screens

In view of the various reports published in August in various sections of the media concerning theineffectiveness of sun screens in cases such as melanoma, can the Commission say:

1. whether it has any information on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of such products, and

2. if not, what steps will it take to clarify the matter?


(16 October 1998)

The safety of cosmetic products marketed in the Community is ensured by the provisions of CouncilDirective 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmeticproducts, otherwise known as the Cosmetics Directive. The safety of sunscreens is closely examined andregulated through the provisions of Annex VII which lists the ultra violet (UV) filters that can be used incosmetic products in the Community.

Article 7a of the Directive states that the manufacturer must make information on the efficacy of theproduct available to the authorities. The efficacy of sunscreens is demonstrated through the determinationof the sun protection factor (SPF) for a material or product. This is the universal means by which theeffectiveness of a sunscreen is assessed. It compares the UV dose required to introduce skin reaction withand without the protective product under examination. This method (for which a standard protocol isavailable) is widely accepted by dermatologists and health workers and has demonstrated the positivebenefits of the protection provided by UV filters.

However, the Commission is responsive to the concerns over the safety and efficacy of sun products thathave recently been reported. The Commission has convened, in the framework of the activities of thescientific committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers, an expert panelon the safety of sunscreens. The expert panel will convene its first meeting in early 1999 and will advisethe Commission on the consumer safety implications of the use of sunscreens and UV protectors. The


scientific committee will examine the safety of sunscreens, their ability to block the harmful effects of UVexposure, consumer habits and the suitability of SPF for giving consumer information. The Commissionwill review the opinions of the expert panel and propose legislative or technical actions as appropriate.


by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Repayment by the Italian Government of the ‘Europe Tax’

In its 1997 budget the Italian Government levied the so-called ‘Europe Tax’ in order to bring publicfinances into line with the criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty for moving to the third phase of thesingle currency.

The Italian Ministry of Finance has recently stated that 60% of this tax will be repaid to taxpayers by theend of 1998.

Some Member States have several times expressed doubts about the legitimacy of this tax, preciselybecause of the commitment made to repay it.

If the Italian Government were to repay, as promised, part of the ‘Europe Tax’ to taxpayers, does theCommission not consider that this alleged ‘tax’ would in reality be compulsory lending imposed on theItalian people?


(3 November 1998)

The Italian Government has made considerable efforts on the budgetary consolidation front in recentyears, and particularly in 1997. These efforts have enabled Italy to fulfil the budget criteria laid down inthe Treaty on European Union and thus to qualify for participation in the third stage of economic andmonetary union. In that context, Italy’s finance act for 1997 contained a number of tax measures, inparticular an income tax surcharge (‘Tassa per l’Europa’).

When the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ was adopted, the Government stated that it intended to reimburse some ofthe revenue from this surcharge to taxpayers in future years, under conditions to be determined. Recentstatements by the Italian Finance Minister are in line with the political commitments which theGovernment entered into at that time.

Revenue and expenditure items are always entered in the budget in accordance with clear administrativerules. The proceeds from the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ were registered as budget revenue in exactly the samemanner as the proceeds from other taxes.

A formal decision, taken after collection, to refund part of the revenue from the ‘Tassa per l’Europa’ totaxpayers would constitute a new budget measure that would be independent, in both formal andaccounting terms, of the initial collection of the surcharge. The corresponding expenditure would becharged to the budget for the year in which the refund was made.



by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council

(18 September 1998)

Subject: Measures to tackle the crisis in Russia

Among the victims of the recent economic crisis in Russia are the Italian banks.

According to the latest surveys carried out by the Bank for International Settlements, Italian banks haveexposures in Russia amounting to $4,3 billion, the equivalent of over LIT 8 000 billion. The SACE inparticular has exposures totalling LIT 10 600 billion.

Any deterioration in the crisis in Russia could give rise to the so-called ‘contagion effect’ which wouldworsen the general crisis in market confidence.

Can the Council say what the actual exposure of European and, in particular, Italian banks to the roublecrisis is?

Can the Council clarify whether measures will be taken in relation to the introduction of the singlecurrency to protect the economies of European countries against financial crises in third countries, inwhich the Community’s own programmes have encouraged investment?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

According to the Bank for International Settlements’ available data, EU commercial banks account forabout 70 % of foreign bank exposures to Russia. As for Italian banks, their lending to Russia representsabout 9 % of the European commercial banks exposure to this country.

Moreover, the Council considered the means by which the EU can help Russia to overcome the presentcrisis and concluded during the General Affairs Council meeting of 5 October 1998 that its responseshould depend on a credible and sustainable Russian economic programme, to be developed in close co-operation with the international financial institutions. At the EU-Russia Summit which took place inVienna on 27 October 1998, the EU and Russia recognized that a credible and sustainable economic policyprogramme is essential to address pressing social needs, meet existing financial obligations and restoreconfidence in the markets and stability of the currency while stimulating investment, including foreigninvestment.

The Council is of the opinion that the decision on the introduction of the euro at the preannouncedexchange rates, as from 1 January 1999, has shown to be a safeguard against monetary instability betweenthe currencies of Member States following the Asian and Russian financial crises.



(28 September 1998)

Subject: Deposits of caesium-137 exceeding 40 Kbq/m2 in areas of Greece following the Chernobyldisaster

According to the map showing caesium deposits in Europe in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disasterpublished by the Commission in cooperation with scientific institutes and bodies in Russia, Belarus, theUkraine and certain Member States, an increased accumulation of caesium-137 (exceeding 40 Kbq/m2)can be observed in a number of European countries (apart from countries in the immediate vicinity ofChernobyl), including Greece, Austria, Italy and Germany. In Greece, deposits of this radioactivesubstance can be observed in certain areas in particular.


In view of the fact that the half-life of caesium-137, as opposed to other radioactive substances, is 30 years,can the Commission say whether data bases have been set up and and statistics compiled concerning thepossible impact on the health of local residents? In what way is Greece participating?


(10 November 1998)

The atlas of the deposition, over the whole territory of Europe, of radioactive caesium released during theChernobyl accident results from a collaborative research programme of the Commission with Belarus,Russia and Ukraine. It provides much needed perspective for judging the current radiological significanceof the deposition across Europe.

While in a few regions in Greece levels exceed 40 kilobecquerelle per square meter (kBq/m2), as in manyother regions of Member States, there is no reason to expect that any observable health effects would occurin the affected population.

The Commission receives on a regular basis, under the terms of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty,information from Member States on current levels of radioactivity in the environment. This data is storedin the radioactivity environmental monitoring (REM) database of the Joint research centre in Ispra and istaken up in a series of reports published by the Commission.



(28 September 1998)

Subject: The millennium bug and its impact in the EU

It is known that on 1 January 2000 the entire world (in particular the EU) will be facing a chaotic situation.Many of the records concerning the public sector of the EUMember States, together with the financial andbusiness sectors and the EU administration will be lost as a result of the millennium bug, i.e. the failure ofexisting information systems to adjust to the change of the century.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

1. What steps have been taken by the EU to avert the danger of the European administrative sectorgrinding to a halt because of this problem?

2. Has the Commission assessed the impact on the European Union finance and business sectors? Whatis the estimated cost?

3. What stage has been reached by preparations within the Member States and their administrations toconfront the above problem on entering the twenty-first century?

4. Has the EU assumed a coordinating role in endeavouring to avert the serious consequences of theadministrative disruption expected to occur in the Member States?

5. What is the exact amount of budget appropriations which have been or will be earmarked by the EUand the Member States in response to this problem?

6. Will steps be taken to inform companies of the enormous scale of the problem and provide them withincentives enabling them to forestall or overcome the problem with regard to their own records?



(12 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its communication to the Council, theParliament, the Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions on the year 2000computer problem (1).

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written QuestionsE-421/98 (2), E-422/98 and E-425/98 (3) and E-424/98 (4) by Mr Watson.

The Commission is preparing a report for the December European Council in Vienna on the state ofreadiness of the Member States, which should clarify the situation.

Finally the Honourable Member may refer to the Commission’s world wide web site on the matter(http://www.ispo.cec.be/y2keuro).

(1) COM(98) 102 final.(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 61.(3) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 98.(4) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 62.


by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: East Timor independence

Following the change of leadership in Indonesia, will the Commission state what developments have takenplace on the legitimate claim for independence for the people of East Timor?


(26 October 1998)

Since early August 1998, several important developments have taken place with regard to a possiblesolution of the situation in East Timor.

On 4 and 5 August 1998 the United Nations Secretary general held talks with the ministers of foreignaffairs of Portugal and Indonesia in New York that led, for the first time in history, to a joint communiqué.The main point in the communiqué was the agreement to hold in-depth discussions on a special status forEast Timor without prejudice to their basic positions of principle. It was also agreed to involve the variousgroups in East Timor more closely in the search for a solution. It was agreed that the all-inclusive intra-East Timorese dialogue should resume in October 1998. Agreement was also reached on the establishmentof interest sections in friendly embassies in Lisbon and Jakarta respectively.

On 10 and 11 September 1998, a reconciliation meeting took place in Dare in East Timor, on the invitationof Bishop Belo, bringing together all the various factions and public and civil groups of East Timor. At theend of the meeting, a joint statement was published. It stressed the point that there were divergent viewsamong the various groups, and that further efforts were needed to find a common platform to unite thepeople of East Timor.

There were also some sporadic riots and looting of government rice stores in East Timor, due to the direeconomic situation and apparently without political connotation. The Indonesian government continuedwith a moderate reduction of its troops, but recently sent in fresh troops, claiming that the new arrivalswere not combat troops, but included medical officers.

The Commission hopes that the positive developments observed over the past few weeks will soon lead toa just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution for the problem of East Timor.



by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Asylum seekers

Can the Commission say how many asylum seekers there are in each Member State? How many areconsidered to be ‘economic refugees’ and how many political refugees?


(10 November 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat two tables.Table A shows the number of asylum applications lodged in each Member State each year from 1987 until1997. Table B shows the number of decisions taken by each Member State over the same period torecognise a person as a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status ofrefugees.

It is important to note that asylum decisions frequently relate to applications lodged in previous years.There is not therefore a straightforward correlation between the two tables. It is not possible to drawconclusions about the number of unfounded asylum applications submitted in each Member State on thebasis of the information available.

The Commission also notes that many people who are not recognised as refugees within the meaning ofthe 1951 Convention are nevertheless in need of international protection. In some cases, Member Stateswill have obligations under other human rights instruments such as the 1950 European Convention for theprotection of human rights and fundamental freedoms or the 1984 United Nations Convention againsttorture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other cases, there may behumanitarian reasons for not returning the person concerned to the country of origin. A number ofMember States grant what is often referred to as a de facto or ‘B status’ to such people. Common minimumstandards for forms of protection complementary to refugee status have not yet been adopted at the levelof the Union, but Article 73k(2)(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam will require the Council to adopt measuresin this area within five years of the new treaty’s entry into force.


by Hedy d’Ancona (PSE) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Trial against representatives of the Greek Rainbow Party

On 14 October, Vasilis Romas, Costas Tasopoulos, Petros Vasiliades and Pavlos Voskopoulos will go ontrial in Florina (Greece). These leading members of the Greek-Macedonian Rainbow Party (Venezito) arecharged under article 192 of the Greek penal code. They are charged with having incited ‘mutual hatredbetween citizens’ in September 1995 by displaying a sign in two languages (Greek and Macedonian)indicating the name of the party and the local section. After the sign had been removed by the local police,the local party office was attacked by a mob led by the mayor of Florina.

The official charge is that the combination of words used and ‘the fact that they were in a foreign language,and more specifically in a Slavic language, provoked and incited discord between various sections of thepopulation in the region’ and harked back to a ‘former terrorist organization of Slavic-speakers’.

Venizito is an officially recognized political party which has twice participated in elections in Greeceincluding in the 1994 European elections.


Is the Council aware of these facts and of the forthcoming trial against this political party? Does theCouncil consider that, in view of the criminal proceedings against the Rainbow Party, there can be said tobe a breach of international treaty provisions which also apply to Greece? What steps does the Councilintend to take to ensure that inter alia the fundamental freedom of choice of language is also respected inGreece?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply given to Question No E-1998/98.


by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Reappraisal of energy-based medical techniques

There are a number of academic disciplines and fields of professional specialisation which do notcurrently receive adequate support from the European Social Fund, but which have considerable potentialas sources of employment. In particular, the Homo Sapiens Academy of Viareggio (Italy) offersspecialisation courses for doctors and psychologists on an energy-based approach to psychology andclinical practice, designed to provide a familiarisation with this area, and its implications for health,showing its many connections with the biological, psychological and relational aspects of human beings.The energy-based approach has always been confined to experimentation, and moreover, it is not anofficial field. However, the changed cultural climate has now made it possible to establish a body ofknowledge with methodological rigour.

In view of the above can the Commission say:

1. whether there is any provision for measures to facilitate and/or fund the spread and adoption of thesemethods and courses?

2. whether there are any documents on this subject produced by the Commission or any otherCommunity bodies?


(23 November 1998)

The distribution of European social fund (ESF) funding is handled by monitoring committees which makedetailed arrangements for the selection of projects. As a general rule, advanced-level specialisationcourses are not co-financed by the ESF. The Commission has not adopted any guidelines for monitoringcommittees as to the support of the discipline mentioned by the Honourable Member, nor is it aware of anydocuments on this subject produced by any Community body.


by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Council

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Arrangements envisaged by the Council for the project shared amongst European cities ofculture in 2000

In recognition of the symbolic significance of the year 2000, the EU has decided to undertake a projectwhich for the first time will be shared amongst nine European cities of culture: Avignon, Cracow,Reykjavik, Santiago de Compostela, Helsinki, Bergen, Bologna, Brussels and Prague. Five cities from EUMember States and four from European countries outside the Union will thus join together in a culturalcooperation project without precedent in Europe, insofar as it brings together three cities from northern


Europe, three from central Europe and three from southern Europe. Evidently, such an important andambitious project requires special support and adequate funding to ensure that it enjoys success by givingprominence to a European cultural project which embraces the entire continent and forging the ties whichthe project can and must make possible, and avoids the potential failure inherent in merely juxtaposingnine different and independent projects devoid of a common thread binding European culture together.

That being the case, can the Council say what plans, projects, programmes and means of support it hasenvisaged to ensure that the project for European cities of culture in 2000 enjoys the success it deserves?

In particular, does the Council intend to appoint a coordinator to monitor the various forms ofprogramming?

Can the Council specify the total sum it intends to earmark in the budget for this important event andprovide a breakdown of that sum, so as to enable those responsible for the event to plan their activitiesaccordingly?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

The agreement underlying the ‘European City of Culture’ event (pending adoption by the EuropeanParliament and the Council of the proposal for a Decision submitted by the Commission for 2002 andbeyond) is an intergovernmental agreement established by a Resolution of the Ministers for CulturalAffairs meeting within the Council on 13 June 1985 (1).

Amendments were subsequently made to that Resolution, in each instance in an intergovernmentalframework, by conclusions of 18 May 1990 (2), 18 May 1992 (3) and 12 November 1992 (4).

The choice of the European cities of culture for 2000 was therefore an intergovernmental act taken by theMinisters for Cultural Affairs meeting within the Council. It ensues that the Council was unable to takeany initiative along the lines of the last three questions put by the Honourable Member. However, wide-ranging collaboration has developed amongst the cities designated.

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that European cities of culture have hithertoreceived limited support under cultural support programmes (experience has shown that Communitysupport covered approximately 1% of the costs incurred). Those programmes will expire at the end of1999.

On 26 May 1998 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and ofthe Council concerning a first European Community framework programme in support of culture(2000-2004), in which it proposes a sum of ECU 2,5 million for the European City of Culture project.The Culture 2000 programme is currently being examined by the Council’s subordinate bodies.

(1) OJ C 153, 22.6.1985.(2) OJ C 162, 3.7.1990.(3) OJ C 151, 16.6.1992.(4) OJ C 336, 19.12.1992.


by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Code of conduct on arms control

Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Kochhave signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combatrifles.

Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is theCouncil taking on this issue?


Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Code of Conduct on arms exports was adopted on 8 June 1998 with a view to setting high commonstandards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in, conventionalarms transfers by all Member States, and to strengthen the exchange of relevant information with a view toachieving greater transparency within the Union.

The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question have not been brought to the attention ofthe Council.

The Honourable Member will be aware that individual arms export decisions, and therefore theimplementation of the Code, remain the responsibility of the Member States and of their nationallicensing authorities.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the Council is currently engaged in the definition of the detailedprocedure for the envisaged reporting exercise.


by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Code of conduct on arms control

Despite the Code of Conduct on Arms Control agreed in May, the German company Heckler and Kochhave signed a contract with MKEK of Turkey under which the latter will manufacture 200 000 combatrifles.

Given human rights abuses in Turkey does this contravene the Code of Conduct, and what steps is theCommission taking on this issue?


(5 November 1998)

The Union’s code of conduct on arms exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council of8 June 1998. The code lists various criteria for Member States to take into account when selling militarysupplies to third countries. These criteria include compliance with the Member States’ internationalundertakings and the human rights situation in the country of destination. However, the code of conduct isnot an instrument of Community policy and cannot therefore, under the rules of the Treaty, be enforced bythe Commission. Each Member State is accordingly responsible for interpreting the criteria listed in thecode and assessing how they apply to its arms sales.


by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents

Detergents are a major source of phosphorous in waste water. Such pollution has resulted in a legal ban onphosphorous in detergents in Italy and Switzerland and voluntary agreements with the detergent industryin other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This has resulted, for example, in a


94% reduction in the amount of phosphorous in detergents in Germany since 1975. Such measures haveresulted in significant reductions in the input of phosphorous from detergents into the aquatic environmentin the countries where action has been taken.

No such action has been taken in Ireland, resulting in significant aquatic pollution from this source. Doesthe Commission agree that standardisation is necessary to bring Ireland into line with the good practicewhich is widespread across much of the rest of the EU and that this standardisation could come in the formof a Europe-wide voluntary agreement with industry, as in Germany and the Netherlands, or a ban as inItaly?

As a first step, does the Commission agree that phosphorous-free detergents should be VAT-exempted inthe EU to reduce the price deterrent currently in place which prevents consumers from buyingphosphorous-free products?


(30 October 1998)

The Commission is currently examining the issues raised by phosphates in detergents. Controls onmarketing, whether legislative or voluntary, exist in some Member States and vary from one to another.The general attitude toward phosphates in detergents has been evolving in favour of phosphates. Manycircles favour phosphates over other alternative detergent builders providing that wastewater treatment isadequate, since phosphates can be readily removed from wastewater thus making them less of anenvironmental problem than their substitutes.

Council Directive 91/271 EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (1) provides thaturban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment (2)and has established a schedule for the compliance of agglomerations of different sizes up to 31 December2005. Furthermore, special provisions, mainly the requirement for nitrogen and phosphorous removal,have been established for areas susceptible to eutrophication. However, not all Member States havewastewater treatment systems in place.

The Commission is in the process of assessing the need for harmonization of the marketing of phosphatesthroughout the Community. No decision on harmonisation has been taken yet, and in the absence ofharmonisation, the Commission has not considered fiscal incentives.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.(2) ‘secondary treatment’ means treatment of urban waste water by a process generally involving biological treatment

with a secondary settlement or other process in which the requirements established in Table 1 of Annex I of thedirective are respected.


by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Infringement of Directive 91/674/EEC concerning insurance undertakings

According to allegations by various bodies which have now come to light and reached the attention of theCommission, the Greek Ministry of Development is failing to show the necessary rigour in monitoringcompliance with Greek and Community legislation, thereby permitting many insurance undertakings toaccumulate deficits of millions of drachmas and illegally attempt to cover them during the followingaccounting period. This is resulting in constantly increasing deficits, thereby placing policyholders in aprecarious position and allowing certain undertakings illegal access to stock exchange listing.

In the light of the information available to it, does the Commission consider that Directive 91/674/EEC (1)is being properly implemented in Greece and, if not, will it take appropriate measures?

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991, p. 7.



(4 December 1998)

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


by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Trade with Russia

The agreement signed on 23 July 1998 on bilateral trade in textile products between the EU and Russiaabolished some 30 quotas on Russian exports. Has an assessment been made of the potential impact of thesaid agreement on the textile sector in the EU as a whole, and in Spain in particular?


(21 October 1998)

The agreement between the Community and Russia concluded on 20 July 1998 abolishes textile andclothing quotas previously maintained by both parties. It also confirms that the provisions of theCooperation and Partnership Agreement with Russia apply equally to the textile and clothing sector,thus providing a clear and stable legal framework for trade in textiles.

At this stage it is difficult to assess precisely what impact abolishing the 28 Russian quotas will have onRussian exports, since the full statistics are currently available only for the first five months of 1998.

Given the low level of use of most of the Russian quotas when they were in force, and the downward trendin Community imports of textiles from Russia (ECU 246 million in 1997, ECU 244 million in 1996 andECU 277 million in 1995), the elimination of 28 quotas will probably not result in a significant increase inCommunity textiles imports.

Since Russia’s share of total imports of textile and clothing products is also falling (0,44 % in 1997, 0,51 %in 1996 and 0,61% in 1995), it is unlikely that Russian textile exports will have a serious impact on the EUtextile sector.


by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Works of art as debt payments to the Community

In certain instances, and for various reasons, undertakings and individuals alike are obliged to repay sumsto the EU Exchequer.

On occasion, the difficulty created by the financial situation in which undertakings or individuals findthemselves, aggravated further by a shortage of liquidity, makes it preferable for them, as a last resort, topay off their debt by handing over works of art under their ownership.


Can the Commission specify whether it is possible to use works of art to pay off debts to the EuropeanUnion, as is the case in the Member States when undertakings or individuals contract debts with theirnational exchequers, whether regulations exist to cover such an eventuality, and whether it is legallyempowered to deposit such works of art in national museums in the Member States?


(4 December 1998)



by Bernard Lehideux (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Possible resumption of EU accession negotiations with Malta following the change of govern-ment there

Mr Eddie Fenech Adami’s National Party has just won the early elections held on 5 September in Malta.

This is the third term of office as prime minister for Mr Adami, who has always expressed his intention ofbringing Malta into the European Union. He was the originator of Malta’s membership application,subsequently shelved by the Labour government of Mr Alfred Sant which came to power in 1996.

The new prime minister seems to wish to relaunch Malta’s application for membership of the EuropeanUnion.

1. What procedures will the new Maltese prime minister have to follow in order to resubmit hiscountry’s application?

2. When might such an application result in Malta’s accession to the European Union?


(3 November 1998)

1. The new Maltese Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs met the Austrian ForeignMinister in Vienna on 14 September 1998 and officially presented a request for the reactivation of Malta’sapplication for Union membership.

2. At the General Affairs Council of 5 October 1998 the Council asked the Commission to present anupdate of the 1993 opinion on Malta’s request for Union membership. It should be recalled that anydecisions concerning accession negotiations with Malta are for the Council to take.




(28 September 1998)

Subject: Human rights violation in Colombia

According to human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, there are still widespreadviolations of human rights in Colombia. The situation in San José de Apartade is, apparently, particularlyserious.

Is the Commission aware of the situation in San José de Apartade, and what action has it taken to bring thismatter to the attention of the Colombian authorities?

Does the Commission provide financial aid of any sort for refugee groups in Colombia?


(26 October 1998)

The Commission is closely monitoring the human rights situation in Colombia, whose generallyunsatisfactory development continues to give cause for concern. It has repeatedly expressed concern tothe Colombian authorities about the seriousness of the situation regarding human rights and humanitarianissues and asked them to show firmer commitment to improving the situation.

The Commission is aware of the situation in San José de Apartade, which is one of the many examples ofthe situation referred to above. The Member State Ambassadors to Bogota and the Head of theCommission Delegation regularly visit the areas affected by armed conflict to demonstrate their supportfor the victims of violence and extorsion and to bear witness to the international community.

The Commission gives high priority to initiatives designed to protect human rights and monitor humanrights violations in Colombia in three main ways:

− by increasing the presence of the international community in the country (renewing financing forinternational observers made available to the UN Commission for Human Rights for monitoring thehuman rights situation throughout the country);

− by financing initiatives for local non-governmental organisation (NGO) active in the field ofdemocracy and human rights;

− by mobilising ECU 11 million of humanitarian aid specifically for displaced persons and victims ofviolence between 1997 and 1998.


by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Access to universities in Portugal

Is it the case that students completing their studies at the European Schools enjoy preferential andsignificantly easier access to universities in Portugal if one of their parents is employed by the EuropeanUnion, while these privileges are not extended even to Portuguese school-leavers from the EuropeanSchools if neither of their parents is employed by the European Union, and what view does theCommission take of this situation bearing in mind the principles of equality and equal opportunities,which also apply to the general recognition of the leaving certificates awarded by the European Schools?



(30 November 1998)

Portuguese law (Decreto-loi (Decree-Law) No 28 − B/96 of 4 April 1996 and, subsequently, Portaria(Ordinance) No 317 − A/96 of 9 June 1996) offered a special scheme for access to Portuguese universitiesfor the families of members of the Portuguese diplomatic corps and other equivalent services. The familiesof EU officials were also covered by this special scheme, since the Community institutions were classed asequivalent services.

However, a new law published recently (Decreto-loi No 296 − A/98, of 25 September 1998) repeals theprevious law and no longer offers a special scheme for access to Portuguese universities, but only ageneral scheme.

The organisation of educational systems, including the establishment of conditions governing access touniversity, is a matter for the Member States. In the present state of Community law, the Commissionintervenes only in cases where access conditions are different for national students than for students whoare nationals of other Member States and who wish to pursue their higher education in another MemberState.

As regards a Member State treating its own nationals differently one from another, the Commission has nopower to intervene.


by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Creation of an international therapeutic solidarity fund

Following on the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council of 13 December 1997 (paragraph58) on health and the procedure for establishing a therapeutic solidarity fund to combat AIDS in thedeveloping countries, what action is the Commission taking to set up this therapeutic fund rapidly so thatpilot programmes are available to give access to treatment for people with HIV/AIDS in the developingcountries?

It is becoming extremely urgent for the most industrialised countries to implement a concrete policy ofinternational solidarity to combat AIDS.


(22 October 1998)

The European Council of 13 December 1997 asked the Commission to look into the establishment of atherapeutic solidarity fund under the aegis of UNAIDS to help combat AIDS in developing countries.

The Commission analysed this issue in its Communication to the Council and the European Parliament forincreased solidarity to confront AIDS in developing countries (1). The Communication gives a survey ofwork to date to combat the human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. In thelight of the success of targeted preventive operations, it stresses the importance of supporting andreinforcing health-care systems. It also looks at a number of possibilities for creating new solidaritymechanisms, taking account of the need to prepare any such mechanisms collectively.

This Communication is currently being discussed by Parliament and the Council, and particularly by thegroup of Member State experts on this subject.

(1) COM(1998) 407 final.



by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Missions by Community officials and representation of the Commission

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

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

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

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



(2 October 1998)

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

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

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

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

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

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.



(23 November 1998)

Under Article 23 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Member States are obliged to bring into force the laws,regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 5 June 1994. Inthe absence of any notification, within the prescribed period, of the measures necessary to transpose thisDirective, Greece was condemned by the Court of Justice (1) for having failed to fulfil its obligations underthe Directive. Following this judgment, Greece was required to take the measures necessary to ensureimplementation under Article 171 of the EC Treaty. On the basis of this article and in the absence of anynotification of measures to implement this judgment of the Court of Justice, the Commission delivered areasoned opinion to the Greek Government on 25 September 1998. At this stage, the Commission has noinformation as to the causes for the delay in transposing this Directive in Greece.

While the regulatory and administrative measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 92/43/EECinto Greek law have still to be taken, the Greek authorities have nevertheless submitted to the Commissiona national list covering 264 proposed sites for the Natura 2000 network. In particular, this list contains 230sites of Community importance proposed by Greece in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.In addition, the list also contains the 52 sites classified by Greece as special protection areas (SPAs)pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission is currentlyassessing the proposed sites of Community importance in the context of the Mediterranean biogeogra-phical region.

The obligations incumbent on the Member States as regards the protection of future Natura 2000 sites areset out in Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. More particularly, paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 stipulate that anappropriate impact assessment study must be carried out in respect of any plan or project likely to have asignificant effect on the site in question, while at the same time laying down the relevant authorisationconditions to be met. Under Article 7 of the Directive, these provisions already apply in the case of theSPAs. Furthermore, pending the adoption of the definitive lists of sites of Community importance,Member States are being encouraged to prevent any deterioration in the proposed sites, particularly wherethose sites host priority natural habitat types or species.

Any citizen or ecological organisation in possession of information proving that there has been anyinfringement of the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC can contact the Commission and lodge a complainton the matter. If, after examining the complaint, the Commission finds that there has been a breach of theDirective, it will initiate infringement proceedings against the Member State concerned under Article 169of the EC Treaty.

(1) Judgment of 26 June 1997, Case C-329/96, Commission v Hellenic Republic.(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.


by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: European Tourism Agency

In its resolutions A4-80/94 (1) and A4-16/96 (2), the European Parliament called for the creation of aEuropean Tourism Agency. In response, Commissioner Papoutsis stated (P-2433/96 (3) and E-1129/97 (4))that the creation of such an agency would be examined on completion of the first multiannual programmeto assist European tourism.

Will the Commission say what steps it is taking to respond to the Parliament’s calls in this regard,particularly in view of the regrettable absence of any mention of tourism in the Treaty of Amsterdam?

(1) OJ C 18, 23.1.1995, p. 159.(2) OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 34.(3) OJ C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 115.(4) OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 234.



(26 October 1998)

As indicated in its previous replies, the Commission considers that the question of creating a Europeantourism agency should be examined after, and in accordance with, the decision on a multinannualprogramme to assist European tourism, to be taken by the Council. The adoption and implementation ofsuch a programme continue to be the priority of the Commission in the field.


by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Secondary occupations of EU officials

According to information published in Finland, the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research (DG XII), Jorma Routti, is a candidate for membership of the board of the newinvestment bank Conventum, which is to be listed in Helsinki. He considers that this secondary occupationwould ‘promote connections between European research and the money markets’.

The independence required of Commissioners under Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome may surely beregarded as a premise for the independence and impartiality of EU officials. During their period of officethey are absolutely forbidden to undertake any other paid work or unpaid professional work, with theexception of lecturing without a fee. Commissioners are expected to be absolutely independent of nationalinterests or of any other interests external to the Commission.

The secondary occupations of EU officials are governed by the Staff Regulations. EU officials are notpermitted to have secondary occupations, and they require the permission of their superior before theyaccept any. A secondary occupation must not give rise to a relationship of dependence or jeopardiseofficials’ impartiality. Particularly at Director-General level, this requirement may surely be regardedvirtually as an outright ban on outside interests and secondary occupations analogous to that which appliesto Commissioners.

The secondary occupations of EU officials should be considered, above all, in relation to their duties. EUofficials are required, inter alia, to be impartial in relation to the Member States. Secondary occupationsare particularly problematic if the field of activity in question is closely related to that of the relevant EUDirectorate-General. Secondary occupations can easily give rise to conflicts of interest, which are furtheraggravated if they involve payment or other advantages.

EU officials have a strict duty to maintain confidentiality. Especially in the case of senior officials, asecondary occupation may confer a dual role which in the eyes of the outside world may becomeuntenable, inter alia in connection with the duty of confidentiality.

Does the Commission consider it possible for an EU official who is a Director-General to sit on the boardof a financial institution? How does the Commission monitor secondary occupations, and can it publish alist of them? How common is it, in any case, for Directors-General to pursue secondary occupations?


(30 October 1998)

According to Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Staff Regulations, an official wishing to engage in an outsideactivity, whether gainful or not, or to carry out any assignment outside the Communities, must obtainpermission from the appointing authority. Permission shall be refused if the activity or assignment is suchas to impair the official’s independence or to be detrimental to the work of the Communities.


The Commission, in its decision of 7 May 1992, has outlined the criteria applicable to the requests forexternal activities of its officials and other agents. Under this decision, the appointing authority will takeinto account, when examining a request, the nature and the amount of work of the external activity as wellas its possible impact on the productivity of the official in his service, the interest the activity mightrepresent for the Communities, and the net income deriving from the activity.

In any case, external activities, whether they are paid or not, implying the exercise of so-called liberalprofessional activities or a position within a commercial company are not allowed. Furthermore, themaximum ceiling on the total net income for external activities of the official is ECU 3,500 per year. Theamount received by the official over and above this ceiling is to be transferred to the Commission.

As far as the case mentioned by the Honourable Member is concerned, it should be noted that the person inquestion has announced the withdrawal of this application for the external activity.



(24 September 1998)

Subject: Secondary law in the field of immigration and asylum policy

As the documents show, there have been some 70 Council legal acts in the field of immigration policy inthe last few years.

Which acts are involved, specifically? Please give details, with the appropriate references.

Are there moves for more extensive coordination of the law?

What is the Council’s explanation for the fact that the aim of ‘sustainably influencing the reality ofmigration through the European Union in an empirically verifiable manner’ (1) has not, after all,succeeded?

Where and how are data from the Centres for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum and onthe Crossing of Borders and Immigration accessible to the public or MEPs?

(1) Strategy paper on immigration and asylum policy 9809/98, ASIM 170 [unofficial English version of quotation asdocument not available − Translator’s note].

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

1. As the Honourable Member will know, the instruments adopted by the Council in the area ofimmigration and asylum cover various aspects and constitute important steps towards the gradual buildingof a common strategy in the area of immigration and asylum policy. For ease of reference a list ofinstruments adopted in the immigration and asylum areas will be forwarded directly to the HonourableMember.

2. Discussions are under way within the competent Council bodies on the Commission’s proposal for aconvention on rules for the admission of third-country nationals (1). This proposal takes a comprehensiveapproach for dealing with legal immigration policy issues. It is recalled that, on 8 December 1997, inaccordance with Article K.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Luxembourg Presidency of theCouncil submitted the Commission’s proposal to the European Parliament for its views.

3. A second initiative by the Commission in this area concerns the situations of mass influx ofdisplaced persons, and resulted in two proposals, namely the amended proposal for a joint actionconcerning temporary protection of displaced persons and the proposal for a joint action concerningsolidarity in the admission and residence of beneficiaries of the temporary protection of displacedpersons (2). The European Parliament has been consulted also in this matter.


4. In addition, in the context of the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security andjustice, Title IV of the EC Treaty as it will be amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam requires the Council toadopt specific measures on immigration and asylum policies.

5. The data contained in CIREFI and CIREA documents are subject to the conditions laid down in theCouncil Decision of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents (3), as subsequentlyamended by the Council Decision of 6 December 1996 (4). Attention is drawn to the fact that since thesedata are supplied by Member States, under Article 4(1) of this Decision, access to a Council documentcontaining such data is not granted inter alia where its disclosure could undermine the protection ofconfidentiality required by the legislation of the Member State that supplied any of the informationcontained in that document.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997, p. 9.(2) OJ C 268, 27.8.1998, p. 13.(3) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43.(4) OJ L 325, 14.12.1996, p. 19.


by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Council

(24 September 1998)

Subject: The crisis in Albania

The current situation in Albania, where the passive attitude of the international community appears to havebeen the dominant feature over the past years, may jeopardise the maintenance of stability in the region,and the unrest will have evident repercussions on EU countries and future members.

Has the Council taken any measures which would enable security in the area to be increased?

In view of the growth in the number of new conflicts in the country and international passivity, does theEU intend to embark on any kind of mediation or action to resolve the conflict?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The Council regrets that the Honourable Member considers the Rome Conference of 1997, the jointOSCE, EU, Council of Europe, NATO andWEU activities, the providing of ECU 70,4 million in 1997 andof an estimated ECU 105 million in PHARE support for 1998/99, the Commission and EU troika expertsmissions, the presence of the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM), the CooperationAgreement, the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO, the recent establishment of the ‘Friends of Albania’Group and the EU participation in the International Conference on Albania as a passive attitude of theinternational community.

The Council certainly is deeply concerned about maintaining the stability in the region and would like torecall that the European Union and its individual member States are by far the largest contributors to theenhancement of stability in Albania and are likely to remain so for the near future.

The Council wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the Council decision of 22 September1998 adopted on the basis of Article J.4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, requesting the WesternEuropean Union to complete urgently its study on the feasibility of possible options for internationalpolice operations in Albania in order to assist the Albanian authorities to restore law and order in thatcountry. At its meeting on 26 October 1998, the Council welcomed the transmission of the WEUsupplement to its feasibility study.


The Council is looking forward to cooperate with the new Government in Tirana, especially in the areas ofeconomic and democratic reform, and the enhancement of internal security. It made clear the absolutenecessity of progress in the national reconciliation process, and of the adoption of the constitution, andurged all political forces, and in particular the leadership of the Democratic Party to live up to theirresponsibility towards the Albanian people.

The Council welcomed the successful holding of the International Conference in Tirana on 30 October,which took stock of cooperation between the International Community and Albania and mapped outcooperation with the new Government in its pledge to restore democracy, security and political andeconomic stability to the country.


by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Reduction of VAT on certain labour-intensive services

Could the Commission say what progress has been made on the Communication submitted by theCommission on 12 November 1997 to encourage job creation at a local level and combat certain types of‘undeclared’ work by reducing VAT on labour-intensive services such as building renovation etc.?


(27 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the communication on the possibility of areduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services for an experimental period and on an optional basis whichit presented to the Council on 12 December 1997 (1) is still being discussed by that institution.

The Commission has now begun work on a proposal for an instrument on reduced rates of VAT.

It would be premature at this stage to discuss how activities such as building renovation should be treatedfor VAT purposes. This matter will be addressed during the work on which the Commission is currentlyengaged.

(1) SEC(97) 2089 final.



(19 October 1998)

Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs

The Ecofin Council has approved the allocation of EUR 420 million to various measures aimed at SMEs,including a loan-guarantee fund requiring a financial contribution from the Member States.

The Italian Ministry for Industry has initiated a yet to be concluded legislative procedure for the adoptionof a decree establishing a national guarantee fund to match the European fund. The Italian fund shouldhave been available by mid-September, but the decree is not expected to be issued in the near future.


Owing to the failure to issue the necessary decree, Italian SMEs are once again unable to take advantage ofEuropean aid, which will instead go to Member States quicker to react in introducing the instrumentsrequired to be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the Community. The delays on the part ofthe Italian Government thus penalise only the potential beneficiaries of Community aid − in this caseSMEs.

How does the Council intend to protect the interests of SMEs placed at a disadvantage by theirgovernment’s failure to take the necessary legislative action in good time?

What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis those governments which fail to adopt appropriate measures,thus penalising businesses in their own countries?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

In accordance with the division of powers between the Institutions under the Treaty, the Council has nocompetence to ensure that the Community measures are applied in Member States.


by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: The privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. in Italy

On 30 July 1998 the Commission stated its position on the privatisation of Società Autostrade S.p.A. andlaid down a number of rules with which the Italian authorities must comply in order to adhere to theprinciple of equal treatment and non-discrimination with regard to both the sale of shares and thearrangements for application of the concession, in compliance with the European rules set out in theCommission communication (1).

Would the Commission state whether:

1. given the fact that it itself confirmed the nature of the relationship with Società Autostrade as beingbased on a ‘works concession’, the management of works contracts by an ‘external, independentcommission’ appointed by the Ministry for Public Works is in keeping with the provisions ofDirectives 305 of 26 July 1971 (2) and 440 of 18 July 1989 (3) on participation in tendering proceduresorganised by concessionaires;

2. the setting up of such a commission would not constitute interference in company activities andtherefore act as a deterrent, particularly to foreign investors wishing to take part in the privatisation,given that similar procedures are not used in the rest of the Community;

3. the setting up of a stable core of shareholders is compatible with the provisions of the aforementionedCommission communication;

4. it is true that, as reported by a leading daily newspaper, Società Autostrade made use of the services ofa leading Roman law firm during the discussions with Brussels, and if so, which?

(1) OJ C 220, 19.7.1997.(2) OJ L 185, 16.8.1971, p. 5.(3) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.


(25 November 1998)

1. Article 3 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of proceduresfor the award of public works contracts (1) distinguishes between different types of concessionaires in thecase of works to be carried out by third parties. Paragraph 3 of the said Article stipulates that when the


concessionaire is himself a contracting authority, he shall comply with the provisions of this Directive inthe case of works to be carried out by third parties. Paragraph 4 of the Article, on the other hand, stipulatesthat a concessionaire other than a contracting authority is bound only to apply the advertising rules. Thereis no provision preventing any third party in relation to the concessionaire from conducting the proceduresfor the award of public works contracts.

2. The Italian Authorities set up an external commission as part of their effort to make the rules forapplying for the concession as transparent as possible and open to competition.

3. The Commission, in order to reply more precisely to the third question, invites the HonourableMember to be more specific in his question about the stable core of shareholders.

4. The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that institutionally it has relations exclusivelywith the Member States’ authorities. It is for these national authorities to establish what means andresources should be employed and to determine the composition of the delegations that deal with theCommission.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.


by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Recognition of academic qualifications

In the reply to question E-1304/98 (1) which I submitted on 29 April 1998 no mention is made of the thirdquestion, which I shall rephrase for ease of understanding: With what conditions must an Italian studentwith a Master of Arts degree from the Open University in Britain comply so that his degree is recognised?

1. Can the Commission provide the information requested?

2. If not, to whom must students in this situation turn to obtain correct information?

3. Does the Commission rule out taking steps to ensure that such students have their rights recognised?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 89.


(18 November 1998)

In reply to the first question, the Commission would like to refer to its answer to the HonourableMember’s Written Question No 1304/98 (1), in which it explained that there is no system of automaticrecognition of diplomas in the Community. As a result, the ‘Master of Arts’ degree awarded by the OpenUniversity in the UK is not automatically recognised in Italy or any other Member State. Furthermore, inreply to the third question, the Commission would like to emphasise once again that the academicrecognition of diplomas and the conditions which must be fulfilled for diplomas to be recognised are theexclusive responsibility of the Member States. In view of the diversity of the contents and structure ofhigher education in the Community, diplomas are assessed on a case-by-case basis. This means that OpenUniversity graduates wishing to have their ‘Master of Arts’ degree recognised in Italy will have to apply tothe Italian authorities.

(1) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.




(8 October 1998)

Subject: Notification requirement

According to Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 the Member States arerequired to communicate to the Commission any draft ‘technical’ regulation within the meaning of thedirective. In my view the Austrian Regulation on the avoidance and recovery of packaging waste andspecific residues and the establishment of collection and recovery systems (VerpackVO 1996) BGB1 IINo 232/1997 should be covered by this provision.

Is the Austrian regulation covered by the notification requirement in the Directive?

If so, when was it communicated?

If it was not, what are the legal implications of this omission?

(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.


(4 November 1998)

The two texts the Honourable Member refers to were notified to the Commission at draft stage inaccordance with Article 16(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December1994 on packaging and packaging waste. (1)

Both were draft measures which Austria was planning to adopt in the context of Directive 94/62/EC.Pursuant to Article 16(1) of Directive 94/62/EC, the Austrian authorities were thus bound to notify them inaccordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying downa procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2) (whichhas since become Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 (3)).

The draft Decree of the Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the Family on the avoidance andrecycling of packaging waste and of certain goods residues and the establishment of collection andrecycling schemes (VerpackVO 1996) was first notified on 27 August 1996 (notification number96/332/A). The adopted text was published in the Austrian official gazette (BGBl No 648/1996 of29 November 1996).

A new version of the same Decree (VerpackVO 1997) was notified at draft stage on 1 April 1997(notification number 97/156/A). The definitive text was published in BGBl II No 232/1997.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.(2) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983.(3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.



(8 October 1998)

Subject: Social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry in Greece

The EU’s imposition of acreage quotas on tobacco-growing in Greece has reduced tobacco production andthe level of employment in the industry, which had already been cut by advances in technology. The effectof this has been to put workers’ expectations of retirement under threat since, through reducing thenumber of days of insurance contributions and increasing the inordinate number of years of contributionsrequired (now 40), it is possible that they may not be able to retire on a pension.


As provision was made for specific measures to safeguard workers’ insurance rights, and having regard toArticles 10 and 25 of the charter of workers’ fundamental social rights, will the Commission say whether itwill take specific measures to protect the social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry?


(13 November 1998)

In the field of social protection, Member States are free to decide their own policies as regards theorganisation and operation of social security systems, provided they comply with Community legislationon equal treatment for men and women.

This means that Member States may adopt rules fixing the number of years of insurance contributionsneeded to qualify for an old-age or retirement pension.


by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Gianfranco Fini (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Europol and the Internet

The use of the Internet by paedophiles and the transmission of obscene material depicting minors, whichhas recently led the police in a number of countries to take action to arrest those responsible, underlines theneed for concerted action by the Member States, in cooperation with the international organisations thatprotect the dignity and rights of minors.

Would the Commission state whether, to combat this evil more effectively,

1. it agrees that proposals should be put forward to regulate the use of the Internet by preventing accessto it for purposes inimical to the dignity of the individual?

2. it agrees that governments should be urged to take action under the ‘Third pillar’ to harmoniselegislation concerning paedophile activities and the defence of minors?

3. it considers that Europol’s powers could include the investigation and prosecution of thoseresponsible for using the Internet to promote paedophile activities?


(19 November 1998)

1. The Community has a well defined policy in this area, based on a set of complementary instruments.

Following wide ranging consultation on the basis of a green paper on the protection of minors and humandignity in audiovisual and information service (1), the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 onthe development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry bypromoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection ofminors and human dignity (2) is the first legal instrument concerning the content of on-line audiovisualand information services made available on the Internet.

Based on a communication, a Council Resolution and two working party reports on illegal and harmfulcontent, the Commission has adopted a proposal for an action plan to promote safe use of the Internet (3).The action plan supports four areas: a European network of hotlines, self-regulation by industry, filteringand rating and awareness. Member States are also committed under the Recommendation on protection ofminors and human dignity to provide the appropriate framework. The Recommendation offers guidelinesfor the development of voluntary national self-regulation, based on four elements: codes of conduct;


consultation and representativeness of the parties concerned (industry, service and access providers, userand family associations, public bodies, government) in preparing, implementing and evaluating codes ofconduct; national bodies representative of all the parties involved facilitating cooperation at Union level;and national evaluation of self-regulation.

2. The Commission agrees that governments should take action under the third pillar and welcomes thework on the draft joint action submitted by the Austrian Presidency concerning the fight against childpornography on the Internet.

3. Referring to Council decision of 4 December 1997, a draft Council decision is being prepared toextend the present mandate of Europol on trafficking in human beings to cover child pornographymaterial. For the time being, and pursuant to the Convention establishing Europol, child pornography canonly be covered by Europol if an enquiry is related to a case involving trafficking in human beings.

(1) COM(96) 483 final.(2) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.(3) COM(97) 582 final modified by COM(98) 518 final.


by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Role of the media in the increased sexual exploitation of women

According to a recent statement by the Council of Europe, women are the main victims of sexualexploitation using the networks, which constitutes a serious violation of human rights. The way in whichwomen are depicted by the mass media is contributing to the increased sexual exploitation of women inEurope, while those involved in the white slave trade are making increasing use of modern media and newtechnologies. What action does the Commission intend to take and what measures will it adopt in responseto this serious problem?


(10 November 1998)

The Commission understands the question as addressing two separate issues. The first concerns the imageof women in the media. Women are often represented through stereotyped images showing traditional andunequal roles for women and men, including images which could possibly encourage the sexualexploitation of women. The image of women in the media is one of the main concerns of the equalopportunities policy of the Community. A series of projects promoting non-stereotype images for womenin broadcasting have been co-funded by the Commission under the third (1991-1995) (1) and the fourth(1996-2000) (2) Community action programmes for equal opportunities. In addition, a Europe-widesurvey on existing research on women and the media has been completed and will be published by theCommission.

The second issue addressed by the Honourable Member concerns the use by criminal organisations of newtechnologies, in particular Internet, in relation to trafficking in women for purpose of sexual exploitation.A distinction has to be made between ‘sexual advertising’ offered on the Internet by individuals orspecialised firms and the use of Internet by certain organisations to carry on their criminal activities thatare not necessarily restricted or even related to trafficking in women. The Commission has proposed an


action plan (3) on both illegal and harmful content on the Internet focusing on prevention and publicawareness aspects. As for the use of Internet by criminal organisations, Europol is seeking to develop astrategy to obtain intelligence and information on high tech crime that would embrace a larger scope thansimply computer crime.

(1) COM(90) 449 final.(2) COM(95 381 final.(3) COM(97) 582 final.



(28 September 1998)

Subject: Italian proposal to promote job creation in the south with exemptions from contributions

The Italian Government recently issued a proposal to promote job creation in the south of Italy byexempting firms in the area from paying contributions.

The Government failed, moreover, to obtain information from the Community authorities about thelegality of this measure. The same thing happened in 1995 when it launched ‘work training contracts’ andas a result of this emission infringement proceedings were initiated against Italy (for breachingCommunity anti-trust rules) and the firms were requested to refund all the subsidies received since 1995.

Does the Commission not agree that the Italian Government’s measures to support the south discriminateagainst firms in the other regions of Italy which would like to hire more staff but cannot benefit from anyjob-creation measures?

What measures does the Commission intend to take against Italy in order to avoid any further ‘omission’to notify national measures?

Does the Commission not consider that SMEs in Italy should be given more protection to ensure thatproductive workers do not suffer from the Government’s errors?


(19 October 1998)

The Commission has not been officially informed of the proposal to which the Honourable Member refers.

Under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, the Italian Government is obliged to inform the Commission of anyplans to grant or alter aid before they are implemented, so that it can decide whether they are compatiblewith the common market. The Commission will ensure that this obligation is met.

The Commission will examine measures notified to it in the light of Community rules and in particular,where the measure is to promote job creation, on the basis of the guidelines on aid to employment (1).

If measures are put into effect before the Commission gives its approval, they are illegal and theCommission may also ask for any subsidies received to be refunded.

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to comment on the Italian Government’s intentions tosupport certain regions or categories of firms, provided that Community rules on state aid are upheld.

(1) OJ C 334, 12.12.1995.



by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: The purchase of cars in the European single market

Following the difficulties that my constituents have encountered in purchasing European motor cars, withUK specifications, from suppliers in the Netherlands and elsewhere can the Commission say what action itis taking to ensure a genuine European single market in the purchase of cars?


(9 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions P-1957/97 byMr Skinner (1), E-3298/97 by Mr Watts (2), E-1851/98 by Mr Mather (3) and E-2534/98 by Mr Mather (4).

(1) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998.(2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.(3) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 90.(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 149.



(8 October 1998)

Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it considerthat this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?



(8 October 1998)

Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affected by anyderogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when suchderogations come to an end?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)




by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Reform of the law on representation in the armed forces in Italy

On 21 July 1998, the defence committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved the text of a lawaimed at reforming the system of representation in the armed forces.

The substance of the law reveals the lack of a political will to undertake an innovative reform of the systemof representative in the armed forces so as to improve the conditions of military personnel.

The law has been met with complete indifference and has failed to prompt any critical reaction on the partof military personnel, indicating a serious and alarming lack of concern about the law’s content.

For many years the fundamental rights of military personnel in the armed forces of European countrieshave been enjoyed wide-ranging and comprehensive protection under the law. In view of the fact that in1985 and 1997 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation stating that military personnel shouldbe allowed proper and effective representation, does the Council not consider it necessary to make aspecific recommendation, without encroaching on the autonomy of the Italian Parliament, that the newlaw, which is set to be approved by the Senate, should incorporate the constitutional right to the protectionof the fundamental and inalienable rights of association and be brought into line with similar laws in otherEuropean countries as part of a unified defence policy in the WEU?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the competence of the Council.


by Renate Heinisch (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Information on the level of EU aid paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1997

For what measures was Community funding paid to universities and research institutes in Baden-Württemberg in 1997, and how high were the grants from:

1. the Fourth Framework Programme for activities in the field of research and technological develop-ment and demonstration,

2. the Community programmes in the areas of energy and the environment,

3. Community initiatives, particularly the Interreg programme,

4. the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth for Europe programmes,

5. other Community programmes?

Supplementary answergiven by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

Further to its answer of 23 October 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the followingadditional information.


In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and toParliament’s Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.


by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Echelon system

The interim report published by STOA in January 1998 confirms the existence of the Echelon system,whereby the United States, with the aid of a grid of telecommunications networks based on Vortexsatellites, can intercept all messages sent within the European Union by telephone, fax or E-mail.

We are told by a well-informed source that the President of the Commission has circulated a document tothe institution’s chief section heads warning of the risks of the Commission’s communications beingintercepted.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What steps does it intend to take, within the framework ofits powers, to protect institutions, businesses and individuals within the Union against all forms of politicaland economic espionage?


(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to Commission answers to Written Questions numbers E/1039/98 byMs Van Dijk (1), E-1049/98 by Ms Van Dijk (2), E-130/6/98 by Ms Muscardini and others (3), E-1329/98by Ms Raschhofer (4), E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco (5) and E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (6).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 55.(2) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 54.(3) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 109.(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 35.(5) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 90.(6) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 130.


by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Council

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Israel’s request to join the group of Western European and other States in the UN

The State of Israel is the only one of the 185 Member States of the UN which cannot be elected to theSecurity Council. This is because the group of Asian States, to which Israel belongs geographically, ban itfrom joining their organization and the European Union countries have not yet responded to Israel’srequest to join the Western group.

The United States, Australia, Canada and Norway have already indicated that they are in favour.

What response does the Council intend to make to Israel’s request?

Does it not consider that to approve the request would be a sign that it rightfully condemns the Asiangroup’s discrimination against Israel?


Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

The Council recalls that, in the EU’s view, Israel geographically belongs to the Asian Regional Group.However, given that Israeli membership of the Asian Group is unfortunately not possible at present, it isright for the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) to be ready to recognise that difficultyby, on a case-by-case basis, supporting Israeli candidatures for elections in UN bodies where there are noWEOG candidates.

On the question of granting Israel temporary membership of WEOG, the EU’s position remains that itwould not be appropriate to take a decision to this effect. Furthermore, it should be noted that for thispurpose agreement by the EU would not be enough as a consensus of all WEOG members would berequired.



(8 October 1998)

Subject: Meda-Democracy Programme

B’Tselem − The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories − has asked methe following question:

’Parliament initiated the Meda-Democracy and Human Rights Programme in 1996, which we understandhas proven very useful in the promotion of human rights and democracy in the Mediterranean. We haveheard that the Commission is envisioning major administrative changes to the Programme that would havea negative effect on the achievements of the Programme. We would like the Commission to explain to usethe nature of the changes envisaged and to convince us that this would improve the work of NGOs in thefield.’

Can the Commission respond to the concerns of NGOs working in the field to provide visibility and hopeas regards human rights and democracy?


(9 November 1998)

We envisage changes to the MEDA Democracy programme following the implementation of the proposalfor a Council Regulation (1) setting out requirements for the implementation of Community operationscontributing to the overall objective of the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule oflaw and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the Occupied Territories as in theCommunity’s Mediterranean partner countries. The proposal is currently under consultation withParliament.

The Regulation has yet to be approved in detail, but the main innovations are intended to make financingdecisions more transparent, for example by obliging the Commission to submit an annual report toParliament and the Council on the operations financed and an overall evaluation of such operations threeyears after the Regulation enters into force.

(1) OJ C 282, 18.9.1997.



by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Gas and fire liability

Will the Commission reconsider the need for a proposal on service liability to complement the existingDirective on product liability?

In addition, has the Commission undertaken any research into how information on fire safety might bestbe applied to consumers in holiday accommodation and does the Commission consider that there is a caseto mandate the existing Recommendation on Fire Safety?


(5 November 1998)

In the context of consumer safety protection, and the internal market, the Commission intends toreconsider and explore the needs, scope, options, approaches and possible contents for Community actionin the field of service safety. Preventive aspects of the safety of services will be considered as well asreparative aspects linked to liability.

The Commission intends to launch studies for an updated assessment of the issue as soon as possible.

The necessary contacts with Member States’ experts and interest groups will take place in the course ofthese studies.

Safety information is already part of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on firesafety in existing hotels (1). The Commission does not plan to launch specific research on that subject.

Following a Resolution by Parliament on fire safety in hotels (2) a study on the state of the implementationof the Recommendation in the Member States shows that the Recommendation has been extensivelyimplemented in national legislation. The Commission does not, therefore, envisage proposing that thisRecommendation becomes mandatory.

For further information on this point, the Honourable Member is referred to Written Question E-1423/97by Mrs Pollack (3).

Safety in hotels could nevertheless be examined when considering the safety of services and taken intoaccount in the studies to be carried out in this context.

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.(2) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994.(3) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.


by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of products containing precious metals

Since there is no specific Community directive to harmonise the manufacture and marketing of productscontaining precious metals, some EUMember States are using their domestic legal regulations to obstruct


the marketing of products from other Member States, even in cases where the inspections they perform areidentical or equivalent to those in the Member State from which the goods have come.

The main problem lies in the different methods used by the Member States to approve products. To bemore precise, Spain has 52 laboratories authorised by the state authorities to inspect and stamp goods.Nonetheless, exporters are required to have the same goods stamped in the Member State for which theyare bound (chiefly Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland), and are thusobliged to pay laboratory charges in both Spain and the other Member State in question, since the latterdoes not recognise the Spanish quality mark. As a result, apart from the additional costs incurred,commercial transactions are subject to holdups and delays.

In such circumstances, does the Commission intend to take measures of any kind to remedy this absence oflegislation, which is responsible for a clear obstacle to the free movement of goods and for the consequentfailure to observe the principle of mutual recognition?


(18 November 1998)

As a general observation, it should be noted that the Commission has already examined the MemberStates’ legislation on precious metals as part of an EU-wide survey. Following this examination, theMember States were asked to amend their existing legislation (these amendments are still under way inthree Member States) in order to comply with the principle of free movement of goods enshrined inArticles 30-36 of the EC Treaty and set out in the rulings of the Court of Justice (for products containingprecious metals, see in particular the Robinson judgement of 22 June 1982, Case 220/81, and theHoutwipper judgement of 15 September 1994, Case C-293/93). As a rule, compliance with this principlemeans accepting hallmarks on products legally manufactured or marketed in other Member States andaccepting sponsors’ marks and quality labels which give the same level of detail as required by law in theMember State where the product is marketed.

In practice, however, there are still problems with free movement. These problems stem mainly from therestrictive application of the principle of mutual recognition and in particular the notion of equivalence.Despite having adopted mutual recognition clauses in compliance with the Commission’s request, someMember States with a mandatory official hallmarking system, i.e. where stamping is done by one or moreofficially recognised independent bodies, seem to refuse to give equal recognition to hallmarks laid downby an official body and hallmarks laid down by a body which is controlled by the manufacturer but closelymonitored by the national authorities as part of their quality assurance system.

Because of this situation, the Commission has resumed talks with the Member States concerned.


by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Imports of flowers from Latin American countries

In its answer to my questions (E-0901/97 (1) and E-1762/97 (2)) on imports of flowers from LatinAmerican countries, the Commission stated that it kept a close watch on trends in exports of flowers andplants to the Community.

1. Can the Commission provide precise figures on the export of flowers and plants from LatinAmerican countries to the Community for the period 1991-1998?


2. Can the Commission indicate whether exports to the EU will increase further as a result of the crisisin Russia and Asia and if so, to what extent?

3. Has the Commission already considered adopting measures in accordance with the provisions inArticle 14 and Annex VI, chapter 6 of Regulation 1256/96 (3)?

4. Can the Commission provide information on the results of the study, to which it referred in itsanswer to my first question and in which particular attention was paid to reduced drug production becauseof the increased opportunities to export flowers?

(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 37.(2) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 92.(3) OJ L 160, 29.6.1996, p. 64.


(9 November 1998)

1. Statistics on EU imports from Latin America and total imports from non-EU countries of flowers andplants (CN codes 0601 to 0604) for 1991-1997 will be sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament’sSecretariat.

2. The statistics show a slight increase in exports from non-EU countries in 1997 compared with theprevious year but this is not necessarily the result of the crisis in Russia and Asia.

3. Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 1256/96 of 20 June 1996 provides that where a productoriginating in one of the countries or territories listed in Annex III is imported on terms which cause orthreaten to cause serious difficulties to a Community producer of like or directly competing products, CCTduties on that product may be reintroduced at the request of a Member State or on the Commission’s owninitiative.

In the case of cut flowers under CN code 0603 originating in the countries referred to in Annex V, thesituation described in Article 14(1) is deemed to exist where in any given year the quantities released forfree circulation under preferential arrangements exceed the volume of imports from one of these countriesto the Community corresponding to a figure halfway between the highest quantity and the averagequantity in the last four years for which statistics are available.

To date the Commission has neither decided itself nor received a request from a Member State to applyArticle 14 to products under Chapter 6 of the Combined Nomenclature.

4. The reports (1) evaluating the beneficiary countries’ efforts to combat drug trafficking and analysingthe economic and social impact of the special arrangements have concluded that there is a need for such aninstrument to support beneficiary countries’ efforts to reduce their dependency on the drug economy andstabilise their economic and social structures and constitutional institutions. However its objectives havenot yet been fully met. Given the problems involved and continuing lack of progress or headway theCommunity considers it should continue to assist the Andean Community and Central America in the fightagainst drugs through the GSP. There will in any case be a general review at the end of the ten-year period(2004) of this and all other aspects of the scheme.

(1) These reports will be presented to the Generalised Preferences Committee under the procedure referred to inArticle 18(3) of Regulation (EC) 3281/94 (OJ L 348, 31.12.1994) on 10 November.



by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Joint EU-Algeria education programmes

Would the Commission be prepared to draw up plans for joint actions in the field of education as a specificEU-Algeria programme?


(9 November 1998)

Within the context of the MEDA programme, in 1996 the Commission came to an agreement with theAlgerian government on a programme of bilateral financial cooperation lasting several years, which takesinto account on the one hand the main thrust of MEDA policies − support for economic transition, a bettersocio-economic equilibrium and for the development of civil society and on the other the socio-economicchallenges facing Algeria and the security situation. On this basis, the Commission and the Algeriangovernment have chosen to concentrate funds on five cooperation programmes.

As the social situation is worrying and the unemployment rate is around 30%, the Commission would liketo provide support in reinforcing the social net through job creation. Other elements of the programmeinclude structural adjustment facility, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, privatisation andthe modernisation of the financial sector. Current Community cooperation programmes and those inpreparation include major training components, such as the training of business women, financial sectoremployees or traditional fishermen.

Since education is an area of Euro-Mediterranean partnership as defined in the Barcelona declaration, theCommission and the Algerian government could take the opportunity offered by the revision of MEDAprogramming to redefine future cooperation priorities on the basis of Algeria¢s medium- and long-termsectoral strategy and agree to target education from now on.


by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Television without frontiers

The qualifying match for the European Championship between Denmark and Belarus in Belarus wasshown only on TV3 since the other channels DR and TV2 were unwilling to pay the high cost. This meantthat only 60% of viewers were able to see the match. This is not in conformity with the Council directivestipulating that some national sporting events must not be shown only on channels available to a smallsection of the population. Is there a loophole in the directive?

How does the directive affect the cost of television rights?


(4 December 1998)

Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552/EEC (the ‘Television without frontiers’ Directive) (1), as amended byDirective 97/36/EC (2), allows − but does not require − Member States to take measures in accordancewith Community law to ensure that a substantial proportion of the public is not deprived of the possibilityof following events of major importance for society via live or deferred coverage on free television.


Any measures taken by the Member States must strike a balance between the legitimate general interestrecognised by Article 3a(1), on the one hand, and competition between free channels and pay channels andthe freedom to supply cross-border services on the other.

In general, the Commission believes that offering free channels the rights to televise events considered tobe of major importance for society at market prices may be regarded as a solution that is in the spirit of theDirective, which does not specify any mechanism for fixing the price of rights.

In accordance with Article 3a(2) of the Directive, the Danish authorities have notified the Commission of adraft ministerial decree laying down rules for televising events of major importance for the Danish public.The Commission is currently examining these measures to ensure that they are compatible withCommunity law.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.


by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Spread of resistant MDR-TB in Russia

According to the Guardian (23.9.1998), a mutant form of tuberculosis called multi-drug resistant TB-MDR-TB is spreading quickly in Russian prisons. Ordinary TB in Russia can be treated in six to eightmonths, MDR-TB takes 18 months to treat and there is only a 60-85 % chance of survival. Furthermore,the treatment of MDR-TB is very expensive compared to the treatment of traditional TB. MDR-TB isspreading quickly in overcrowded Russian prisons and is passed on into the rest of society as prisoners arefreed and through prison personnel. Obviously MDR-TB knows no national borders. Tackling the crisis isgoing to prove very expensive even according to modest estimates.

What is the Commission going to do to help Russia stop the spread of MDR-TB and thus combat a majorthreat to Russia, Europe and the rest of the world?


(16 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the dramatic increase intuberculosis (TB) cases in the Community of Independent States (CIS) in the 1990s. In the RussianFederation, the case rate rose by 42 % between 1991 and 1994. In the period 1995-1996, a further increaseby 4 % was observed. By 1996, tuberculosis had become the most important lethal infectious disease in thecountry.

The World health organisation (WHO) advocates DOTS (directly observed therapy short course) arelatively cheap and effective scheme of curing TB patients and preventing transmission, but this hasunfortunately proved difficult to implement in the Russian Federation due to lack of drugs and the fact thattreatment preferences vary among local medical staff. Treatment methods are often changed during a cure,favouring the increasing appearance of drug resistant bacteria.

Throughout the last year, the Commission has been funding specific humanitarian projects addressing thisproblem (DOTS training for local medical staff, provision of drugs). These activities have been focusingon prisons in Central Siberia, where the TB issue is particularly important.


While it is understood that the scientific aspects of TB, including the potential adaptation of existingtreatment methods to multiple-drug resistant bacteria, have to be addressed by specialised agencies such asWHO, the Commission is considering the continuation and possible expansion of its programmes in theRussian Federation.

However, it has to be stressed that the medium-term success of these efforts will depend on effectiveimplementation of the recommended treatment strategies by local medical authorities.


by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Developments with regard to the European Energy Charter

The European Energy Charter is intended, in particular, to protect investment in the field of energy and topromote investment in the energy sector in Central and Eastern Europe. In view of the current crisis inRussia, it is very important to investors to know that their investments in Russia are secure.

According to the most recent information available, France has not yet ratified the Charter.

1. Which EU Member States and which non-member countries of the EU have not yet ratified theCharter?

2. Why has Russia not yet ratified the Charter?

3. What is the nature of France’s objections?

4. Can the Commission do anything to accelerate ratification, as the European Energy Charter is animportant instrument for the protection of investment in energy in Russia, and bearing in mind currenteconomic conditions?


(20 November 1998)

1. The Member States which have not yet ratified the Energy Charter Treaty are France and Ireland.Other signatories of the Energy Charter Treaty which have not yet completed their national ratificationprocedures are: Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Japan, Malta, Norway, Poland,Russian Federation and Turkey. Ukraine has completed its national ratification procedure but not yetdeposited its instrument of ratification with the depositary.

2. The Russian government initiated the ratification procedure for the Energy Charter Treaty in August1996. However, up to now, the Duma has not taken up this important issue, which is still pending in itseconomic policy committee. On several occasions, the Commission has tried to help overcome theconcerns of the Duma. In February 1997, the member of the Commission responsible for energyparticipated in a seminar organised for members of the Duma in order to explain and to promote theratification of the Energy Charter Treaty by the Russian Federation. At the G8 Energy ministerial meetingon 1 April 1998 in Moscow, the Commission highlighted again the importance of ratification of theEnergy Charter Treaty as soon as possible by all signatories, including and above all by the RussianFederation.

3. The Commission is not aware of any political or legal reason that poses a problem for France to ratifythe Energy Charter Treaty. The procedure for ratification is pending in Parliament, after having beeninterrupted in 1997 when the National Assembly was dissolved. The Senate has already approvedratification.


4. The Commission has no instruments at its disposal to speed up ratification procedures in nationalparliaments. It can only underline the importance of ratification for the whole Energy Charter process, andespecially for the creation of an investor friendly climate in the transition countries.


by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: EU-funds for the trade sector

What percentage of EU funding goes on trade in the following areas, broken down by single Member Stateif possible:

1. Item B3-4000, ‘Industrial relations and social dialogue’;

2. Item B3-4002, ‘Information and training measure for workers’ organisations’;

3. Item B3-4003, ‘Information, consultation, and participation of representatives of undertakings’;

4. Administrative funds via DG XXIII in the fields of trade and support for SMES;

5. Leonardo Programme.

Can the Commissioner also tell me how and to what extent the social partners in the commercial sector arefunded with EU monies, and provide data on their implementation, broken down by Member State?


(4 December 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2097/98 byMr Blak (1).

(1) See page 14.



(2 October 1998)

Subject: Dutch study of phthalates

1. Why did the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment set a higher TDIlevel in April 1998 than in 1994?

2. Why was the assumed weight of the baby raised from 5 kg in the committee’s report of February to8 kg in that of April 1998 and the assumed sucking time reduced from 12 to 6 hours, with the result thatonly 2, instead of the former 3, phthalates were classified as potentially dangerous?

3. The Scientific Committee estimates that phthalate intake from toys only accounts for 10-30% oftotal exposure. Why does the Committee nevertheless take the full TDI value (instead of only 10-30%) asthe basis for its recommendation regarding the withdrawal of phthalates, thus ignoring a fact which it hadearlier pointed out itself?


4. Is the Commission of the opinion that products that may cause long-term damage to young childrenshould at least be withdrawn from the market until it has been unequivocally demonstrated that they areharmless?

5. The Commission certainly shares the Member’s opinion that experiments with children are ethicallyindefensible. How can the Commission nevertheless allow a situation where millions of children areexposed to phthalates for hours at a time on a daily basis although 15 minutes in the laboratory has alreadybeen deemed twice to be ethically indefensible?

6. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that children do not continue to befreely exposed to the danger of phthalates?


(23 October 1998)

1. In its initial evaluation the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment(SCTEE) took account of past data, in particular the tolerable daily intake (TDIs) identified by thescientific committee for food (SCF). For the most part these had been expressed in opinions of the SCF in1996. However in its effects assessment (included in the SCTEE opinion on phtalates in toys of 24 April1998), the CSTEE considered that new data had become available which superseded the older data.

2. In its first report of February 1998, the SCTEE had assumed an exposure period of 12 hours and abody weight of 5 kg, on the basis of a draft report of CEN (European committee of standardisation).Subsequently, the SCTEE, following criticisms of those assumptions, reviewed these criteria and in April1998 concluded that those values were ‘overly conservative for infants using polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-based teethers’ and decided to use an exposure period of 6 hours and a body weight of 8 kg.

3. The SCTEE has highlighted the need to take into account sources of child exposure to phthalatesother than toys and childcare articles. However, it has underlined the uncertainties surrounding thequantification of those sources.

The percentage of 10-30% for the contribution of the other sources refers to all phthalates and does notprovide a sufficient basis for adjustment of the phthalate-specific TDIs mentioned in the SCTEE opinion.Therefore the Commission, in its Recommendation 98/485/EC of 1 July 1998 on childcare articles andtoys intended to be placed in the mouth by children of less than three years of age, made of soft PVCcontaining certain phthalates (1), has indicatively included the guidance values for phthalates in toys whichare recommended by the SCTEE, without adjustment, while drawing the attention of the Member States tothe need to take into account the whole opinion when assessing the safety of the products in question anddeciding the measures to be taken.

In fact, the Recommendation states that in vetting these products, Member States shall monitor the levelsof migration of these substances in the context of appropriate checks, taking into account the opiniondelivered by SCTEE on 24 April 1998 and notably the migration limit values for phthalates released bythese products recommended by this committee and reproduced in the Annex.


In this perspective, the guidance values of the Recommendation should be seen as indicative upper limitsand the Member States, in assessing the safety of specific products, should apply the precautionaryapproach.

4. The Commission takes the view that childcare articles and toys intended to be placed in the mouth bybabies under 3 years, in soft PVC containing phthalates, should indeed be prohibited from marketing andwithdrawn from the market where there are indications that they can harm child health, in particular takinginto account the data included in the SCTEE opinion. In the absence of specific Community legislation inthis area it is up to the Member States to assess the risks posed by specific products and decide themeasures to be taken, in the light of the obligation established by Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June1992 on general product safety (2) under which only safe products may be placed on the market. TheMember States must ensure that any such measures are justified and proportional.

5. The Commission considers that young children in the Community should not be allowed to bedangerously exposed to phthalates, taking into account the available scientific knowledge. The Com-mission intends to propose Community legislation in this area as soon as possible. Pending the entry intoforce of such legislation the Commission invites the Member States to check the market for these productsand take the appropriate action at national level. The issue of tests on babies is a separate issue andinvolves considerations going beyond the specific products and risks in question.

6. The measures taken or planned by the Commission have been mentioned above. It should be noted inaddition that the Commission is consulting the SCTEE again in order to obtain an updated opinion in thelight of new studies on the subject which have been published recently. When it has the updated opinion ofthe SCTEE, the Commission will consider whether any modifications of its present policy in this area arenecessary.

(1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.(2) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.


by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Manchester United

What action will the Commission take to ensure that the proposed acquisition of Manchester United byBSkyB does not conflict with EU competition policy?


(4 November 1998)

BSkyB’s proposed acquisition of Manchester United Football Club falls outside the scope of Communitymerger control legislation (Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control ofconcentrations between undertakings (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June1997 (2)) as it does not constitute a concentration with a Community dimension. In particular, the proposedacquisition does not meet the turnover threshold tests set out in Article 1 of the Regulation.

In principle, therefore, national competition law and procedures apply to this proposed acquisition, whichwill be examined by the British authorities.

(1) OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.(2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997.



by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Breakaway super soccer league

Is the Commission aware of the proposed establishment of a breakaway super league involving Europe’sleading football teams? Will the Commission monitor this situation, particularly to ensure that thebroadcasting of any games arising out of such a development are not exclusively in the hands of ‘pay-to-view’ television companies?


(29 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the proposed establishment of a new European football league involving asignificant number of European football clubs.

The Commission has not received so far any request for clearance, application for an exemption, norcomplaint in relation to this project. If one or the other were received, or if it is considered appropriate toact ex officio, the Commission would in the course of its assessment of the case consider what consumerbenefits will accrue from the new league. This assessment would include an examination of the league’spolicy towards the broadcasting of matches, whether on free-to air-television, pay television or pay-per-view television.


by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law

The opening of infringment proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, therequest by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice and proposals tomake lotteries subject to European competition law rather than national legislation have given rise to somedebate in the Federal Republic of Germany.

As far as I am aware, the German Länder do not intend to open up the German lottery market to foreignorganisers. A range of different issues play a crucial role here, in particular tax considerations.


1. What led the Commission to abandon its original declaration at the EU summit in Edinburgh of12 December 1992 that it would not seek to regulate lotteries?

2. What stage has been reached in the infringment proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 ofthe EC Treaty?

3. What opinion has the Commission expressed in relation to the request by a Finnish court for apreliminary ruling by the Court of Justice in the Läärä case C-124/97?

4. Has the subject been discussed in the Ecofin Council and, if not, when are such discussions scheduledto take place?



(19 November 1998)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it continues to stand by its 1992declaration that completion of the internal market in the area of gambling does not require legislation. Thisis borne out by the fact that no proposal has been submitted either to the Council or to the Parliament forexamination or decision. This position could, however, be reviewed in the light of new developments.

In its judgment of 24 March 1994 on the Schindler Case (C-275/92), the Court of Justice held that theorganisation of lotteries (like other forms of gambling) was an economic activity falling within the scopeof Community law and that, given its peculiar nature, Member States might wish to take steps to restrict it,provided such measures were not discriminatory.

Consequently, if the Commission receives a complaint and its examination leads it to suspect that there areunjustified discriminatory measures in this domain, it can launch infringement proceedings against theMember State, which always has the opportunity to submit its observations. In this regard, theinfringement proceedings against Ireland, which replied to the reasoned opinion sent to it, will beconducted in the light of the Schindler case-law and the forthcoming judgment on the Läärä Casementioned by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that in the Läärä Case, the Commission considered that granting a monopoly to a publicbody in the area of slot machines was a restriction which was not incompatible with the principles of theright of establishment and freedom to provide services as set out in Articles 52 and 59 respectively of theEC Treaty.


by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Council

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States andChile

The negotiating mandate for a European Union free-trade agreement with the Mercosur States and Chilehas met with opposition from farmers’ organisations.

Can the Council say:

1. What stage has been reached? Has a negotiating mandate already been confirmed by the competentCouncil of Ministers?

2. What objective is to be pursued by the draft negotiating mandate with respect to agricultural products?

3. What further prospects does the European Council see for an EU free-trade agreement with theMercosur States and Chile?

4. How does the European Council assess the reservations expressed by farmers’ organisations withregard to a further opening-up of agricultural trade with Chile and the Mercosur States?

5. What form has economic cooperation between the EU and the Mercosur States and Chile taken untilnow, in particular in the agricultural sector?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

At the end of July 1998, the Commission submitted to the Council recommendations authorising theCommission to negotiate an inter-regional association agreement between the EC and its Member Statesand Mercosur and its Member States and a political and economic association agreement with Chile.


Before starting to examine those recommendations, the Council − in accordance with the arrangementsapproved by the Amsterdam European Council (16 and 17 June 1997) for the examination of preferentialagreements − examined impact studies carried out by the Commission in order to reply in particular to thefollowing preliminary strategic questions:

− Will the proposed agreement be compatible with all relevant WTO rules?

− Will the proposed agreement achieve identifiable offensive economic interests of the EU?

− What would be the political and other benefits of the proposed agreement?

− What would be the impact of the proposed agreement on the Community’s other external commit-ments?

− What would be the impact of the proposed agreement on the Community’s common policies?

− What will be the overall economic effect of the proposed agreement?

− Would the proposed agreement be likely to support the development of the multilateral tradingsystem?

It was only after those proceedings that the Council bodies began examining the draft negotiatingdirectives. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Council will be in a position to adopt them.

With regard to the objectives of the draft negotiating directives, it should be stated that the agreementssigned with Mercosur and Chile in 1995 and 1996 provide:

i) in Article 4 that ‘the Parties undertake to forge closer relations with the aim of increasing anddiversifying trade, preparing for progressive and reciprocal liberalisation of trade and creatingconditions conducive to the eventual establishment of a political and economic association, inconformity with WTO rules and with due allowance for the sensitivity of certain products’;

ii) in Articles 34 and 42 respectively that the Parties will determine the suitability and timing of transitionto association in the light of progress made under the existing agreements.

When examining the draft directives, which are of course confidential, the Council will take account of allof the Community’s interests, including its agricultural interests.

In accordance with the information procedure governing relations with the European Parliament in thefield of association agreements and trade agreements, the relevant EP Committees will be informedconfidentially of the content of the negotiating briefs.

The Honourable Member is asked to contact the Commission to receive details of current economiccooperation and especially agricultural cooperation between the EC and Mercosur and the EC and Chile.


by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Corruption in Russia

The current state of the Russian economy suggests that the process of resolving its problems will be longand hard. However, the most regrettable aspect has been the reports alleging that the Central Bank andother bodies have not used the loans granted by the IMF for the purposes for which they were intended andeven that they may have been misappropriated by senior Russian officials. Given this situation, what is thecurrent amount of the EU’s outstanding loans to Russia? What measures will the EU take as regardsmonitoring the loans already granted to Russia or any which it might grant in the future?



(10 November 1998)

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

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

As regards the possibility of new credits to help Russia overcome its present financial crisis, theCommission 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 linkedto the implementation by the Russian government of a credible economic reform policy.



(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 inpreparation for the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Meanwhile, according to the media, workis in progress on a draft ‘Convention on cooperation in the matter of criminal proceedings for offencesagainst 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 forcein 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 beingexamined within the Schengen context. However, the Council understands that the Schengen Presidencyregularly informs the relevant bodies of the European Parliament on work in progress.



(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 criminalproceedings for offences against road traffic regulations and the enforcement of fines imposed for suchoffences’.


− 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 theSchengen 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 forcein the various Member States to be solved?


(11 November 1998)

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

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



(16 October 1998)

Subject: Danube development project

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

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


(19 November 1998)

As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3095/97 (1), theCommission has decided to deal with this case within the infringement proceedings concerning theinsufficient designation of special protected areas according to the Council Directive 79/409/EEC (2) of2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds in Germany. The area concerned, as well as other areasalong 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 formalnotice to the German authorities. The German authorities replied and also notified the designation of arange of areas as special protected areas. However, given that neither the reply nor the designation offurther areas are considered sufficient with a view to the obligation under the Directive 79/409/EEC, theCommission has decided to address a reasoned opinion to the Germany.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998.(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.




(19 October 1998)

Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players

Barriers should not be created that hinder or prevent free competition in the area of professional relationsbetween soccer players and sports promoters, or promoters in general, who operate in a complex andconstantly evolving industry.

The system adopted by the FIGC [Italian Football Federation], which involves the drawing up of a speciallist, does not comply with Italian law since it does not meet the criteria required for the system to berecognised as a professional body.

Private enterprise should not be prevented from bringing its inventiveness, creativity, research capacity,initiative and imagination to the business of competitive sporting activities, where these activitiesconstitute industrial and commercial activities like any other.

In view of the above, can the Council say:

1. whether the notion of sports promoter, as defined by the FIGC, is at odds with the evolvingCommunity case law in the area of professional activities;

2. whether the FIGC regulation on sports promoters constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provideservices, in particular in cases of professional activities being exercised jointly, in relation to theapplicability of the provisions of Italian law No 287/90?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, pursuant to the Treaty, it is the Commissionwhich is responsible for ensuring that Treaty provisions are applied. It follows that, insofar as theHonourable Member’s questions on professional relations between soccer players and sports promotersrelate to the freedom to exercise professional activities and freedom of competition, they fall within theCommission’s sphere of competence.



(16 October 1998)

Subject: Professional relations among professional soccer players

Barriers should not be created that hinder or prevent free competition in the area of professional relationsbetween soccer players and sports promoters, or promoters in general, who operate in a complex andconstantly evolving industry.

The system adopted by the FIGC [Italian Football Federation], which involves the drawing up of a speciallist, does not comply with Italian law since it does not meet the criteria required for the system to berecognised as a professional body.

Private enterprise should not be prevented from bringing its inventiveness, creativity, research capacity,initiative and imagination to the business of competitive sporting activities, where these activitiesconstitute industrial and commercial activities like any other.


In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether the notion of sports promoter, as defined by the FIGC, is at odds with the evolvingCommunity case law in the area of professional activities;

2. whether the FIGC regulation on sports promoters constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provideservices, in particular in cases of professional activities being exercised jointly, in relation to theapplicability of the provisions of Italian law No 287/90?


(7 January 1999)



by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against Luxembourg firms in the crafts trades sector by virtue of the German lawon the posting of workers

Since the beginning of 1997 a law on the posting of workers has been in force in Germany, one of the aimsof which is to prevent social dumping and unfair competition by the posting of workers to other EUcountries. This is a perfectly legitimate objective, but should not be used as a pretext for the introductionof new protectionist barriers.

A case in point is the problem of Luxembourg firms in the crafts sector offering their services in Germany(particularly in Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland), which have been placed in an impossible situationbecause their employees have to be insured both in Luxembourg and in Germany. Workers in theconstruction industry in Luxembourg have a statutory right to paid holiday, and the collective agreementprovides for a holiday bonus of 11,77% of gross pay. Luxembourg firms are now being required by theGerman holiday and pay compensation fund (ULAK) to pay the latter 14,25% of the gross salary paidduring the period spent working abroad as a holiday bonus. Luxembourg firms are at a clear disadvantagein relation to their German competitiors as a result of this dual liability (i.e the payment of simultaneouscontributions to comparable institutions) and the high administrative costs involved.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensurethat the German law on the posting of workers and the social insurance arrangements applying to theconstruction industry do not impede access to the market by firms from other EU countries?

Reply by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

The honourable Member has raised a number of questions concerning the compatibility of the GermanLaw on the posting of workers (Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz) with the freedom to provide servicesabroad, a fundamental freedom under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.

The interpretation of this freedom should take account of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of theprovision of services abroad (1) even though the deadline for the transposal of this directive is not until16 December 1999. Under Directive 96/71/EC, all businesses providing services on the territory of anotherMember State and posting paid workers for this purpose should observe a ‘hard core’ of minimumrequirements in force in that Member State.


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 thepresent holiday-fund scheme in Germany. The Commission has also received numerous complaints frombusinesses in other Member States (but not from Luxembourg so far). Given that the German authoritieshave no intention of suspending the application of their scheme in the light of these references, theCommission is dealing with the matter under the procedure set out in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.


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 byMember 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 Directive90/684/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 ofradical alterations) supported by state aid.

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

(1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.


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 theconfused European scenario as regards interpretation of the definition of rejection and in particular hasidentified new principles, thereby reopening the whole question of this complex affair.

1. What specifically are these new principles that could revolutionise the subject?


2. Should the Commission’s statement be interpreted as meaning that, pending conclusion of theprocess of creating a consensus between the interested parties (as mentioned in the newspaper article) theMember States are no longer required to comply with the definition as interpreted by the Court of Justice?


(4 November 1998)

The press article cited by the Honourable Member contains incorrect information. In particular, there areno ‘new principles’, neither are there elements which ‘revolutionize the subject’.

The definition of waste is contained in Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1).This definition, although useful and necessary in order to pursue the double objective of environmentalprotection and unity of the internal market, has given rise, in certain cases, to practical problems ofinterpretation. On 30 September 1998 the Commission opened a debate on this problem in the context ofthe committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC. In particular, the Commission intends todiscuss with Member States the possible usefulness for the Community of the results of the discussionsheld by the Organisation for economic co-operation and development between 1995 and 1998 on thissubject and the possible follow-up to that. This does not mean that the Commission sees any change in thedefinition of waste, which must continue to be correctly transposed in national legislation according to thenon-exhaustive but useful indications of the Court of justice.

A change of the present definition of waste would require a modification of Directive 75/442/EEC by theCouncil following a specific proposal by the Commission. The Commission underlines that no proposalhas been made. However, the discussion in the committee represents a valid occasion in order to try toreach a clarification on the interpretation, wherever this is necessary. In the end, the exclusiveinterpretation of this definition remains a prerogative of the Court of justice.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.


by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF

In its reply to Written Question P-1145/98 (1) the Commission said that the services performed by acompany for the consortium to which it is associated with regard to training activities under programmesco-funded by the ESF are legitimate, as is the charging of market prices for those services. It thus clearlyconfirms 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 inrespect of market prices:

(a) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than the parametres set by the EuropeanUnion?

(b) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than at least two other offers made to thetraining body by other persons (as laid down in a decision by the European Court of Auditors in someprevious cases)?

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 80.



(30 November 1998)

Further to its answer to the Honourable Member’s written question No P-1145/98, the Commission wouldlike to point out that the uniformity of expenditure on training is the subject of a specific provision ofCommunity regulations. Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 2084/93 (1) states that ‘the Commission shallensure 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 (2), itdetermines for each Member State, in agreement with that State, the indicative average amounts ofexpenditure according to the type of training involved. Comparable costs, subsequently defined inMinistry of Labour Circular No 98/95, are agreed at the place of establishment of the partnership, withreference to teacher categories, while Circular No 101/97 from the sameMinistry defines the occupationalcategories and the relevant payment ceilings.

This means that the prices reported must comply with the parameters laid down in the Ministry of Labourcirculars referred to.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.(2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.


by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Situation in Haiti

The Republic of Haiti has been in a state of institutional crisis for many months. The serious economic andsocial situation has been exacerbated by the catastrophic consequences of the devastating hurricaneGeorge.

The extreme weakness of the political, institutional and party system could render the Republic once againungovernable and see the return of authoritarianism.

Can the Commission say what projects aimed at normalising democracy are currently being pursued withfinancial assistance charged to the budget headings for democratisation and human rights?

Can the Commission say what projects it supports to promote the modernisation of the State and inparticular of the judicial system in Haiti, which is essential to guarantee equal treatment for all citizens, themajority of which feel excluded from the legislative process and by the system in general?

Can the Commission say what measures it intends to adopt to ensure that the forthcoming municipalelections are fair and to encourage a significant voter turnout and thus bring to an end the dangerous trendtowards abstention registered at the last elections?


(13 November 1998)

The overall democratisation and good governance strategy established by the Commission and the Haitianauthorities focuses on the justice system and on certain social sectors such as health and education. It isthis strategy which governs the various financial instruments used, whether under the EDF or theCommunity budget.


The budget heading for democratisation and human rights covers a number of projects focusing on the ruleof law and access to the judicial system for underprivileged social groups. Some ECU 6,5 million has beencommitted since 1992 to projects including a project by the non-governmental organisation RCN (thecitizens’ network) to grant legal assistance and train justices of the peace (ECU 640 000), support for thepresidential elections in 1995 and ECU 1 million in support for the commission set up to prepare legal andjudicial reforms (CPRDJ). The first of these projects, to set up legal assistance offices outside the capital,is helping gradually to restore the population’s confidence in the justice system, while the imminent andnecessary reform of the judicial system has been underpinned by mechanisms to consult widely allsections of Haitian society.

In line with these projects, good governance is a focal sector of the national indicative programme for the8th EDF, accounting for 12% of programmable aid, or ECU 17,80 million. Three sub-sectors (education,health and justice) have been identified, and support projects for these are currently under appraisal. Forthese sectors, institutional capacity building will be provided to rationalise and redefine the role of theState and to support decentralisation.

Given the elections’ importance for consolidating the democratic process, support for them may beconsidered once more precise information is available. An identification mission will be undertaken with aview to assessing genuine needs and the scope for financing.


by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Vladivostok psychiatric hospital

Since July 1997 the Vladivostok psychiatric hospital, the only centre of its kind in a city of a millioninhabitants, has not received any funds. The governor of the far eastern region and the mayor of the cityboth refuse to accept financial responsibility for this institution, which has 515 patients and a staff of abouta hundred.

The situation at the hospital is catastrophic: it lacks medicines and food, and hygiene conditions areintolerable (no soap or detergents), making the recovery of many patients increasingly doubtful by theday.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Has it had already made contact with the head doctor,Mr Vladimir Uchakov, to assess the magnitude of the problem and the resources needed to tackle it,possibly in the form of special assistance from the EU?


(10 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the current situation in Russia andin particular about the conditions in the psychiatric hospital of Vladivostok.

The Commission has been providing humanitarian assistance to Russia the European Communityhumanitarian office (ECHO) since the early 1990s. This assistance has through focused on the victimsof armed conflict (e.g. in the Caucasus region), disaster relief, medical assistance to Chernobyl victims andanti-tuberculosis projects. However, to solve the problem of widespread poverty and the often insufficientmaterial resources of the country’s public health system would simply be impossible for a foreign aidagency, given the dimensions of Russia.

It does indeed seem that the general conditions in that the hospital mentioned by the Honourable Memberare fairly bad by western standards. Unfortunately, this is not exceptional in Russia. It would be difficult tojustify special measures in favour of one institution, while not providing the same level of assistance to allother institutions equally or worse affected.


Taking into account the relatively limited funds available, the Commission has to identify priorities inareas which can reasonably be tackled. Large-scale material assistance to the public health sector as awhole being unfortunately an unrealistic goal and beyond available resources, the Commission hasdecided to concentrate its efforts on operations in the above-mentioned fields. Currently, the Commissionis examining the feasibility of further expanding its tuberculosis treatment programmes, one of the mosturgent public health priorities at this moment.


by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products

Is it true, as claimed in several press reports (including one by the Bild am Sonntag on 19 July 1998), thatthe Council is considering the possibility of prohibiting or restricting the advertising of motor vehicles?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?

Is the Council also considering the possibility of prohibiting the advertising of any other products orservices?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council has to date received no proposal from the Commission for a Directive prohibiting orrestricting the advertísing of motor vehicles.

As the Honourable Member must certainly be aware, Codes of Conduct, applied on a voluntary basis incertain Member States, encourage advertising agencies and the motor vehicle industry to limit advertisingwhich is considered likely to act as an incentive to motorists to drive dangerously.

The Council is not aware of any Commission initiatives to introduce such a code on a Community scale or,a fortiori, to propose mandatory provisions.



(16 October 1998)

Subject: Renewable energy sources and wind farms

Wind farms make a valuable contribution to producing clean forms of energy. However, setting up windfarms to exploit the potential wind power of a given area should not be detrimental to the naturalenvironment or residential areas. Nevertheless, attempts are often are made to set up wind farms on sitesadjoining permanent or summer residences, which spoil the landscape and probably create noise whichemanates from the wind-powered generators.

What action will the Commission take to compel the Member States to set up wind farms in such a waythat the environment is not spoiled by haphazard sites?



(12 November 1998)

Wind farms may cause environmental damage by spoiling the landscape and creating noise and aretherefore included in the infrastructure covered by Annex II to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and privateprojects on the environment. (1) Annex II projects are subject to environmental impact assessment basedon criteria or requirements to be laid down by theMember States regarding their size, location and specificcharacteristics.

The new Directive must be transposed by the Member States by 14 March 1999 at the latest.

Moreover, certain wind farms are covered by the provisions of the present Annex II(3)(a) to Directive85/337/EEC if they are ‘industrial installations for the production of electricity’.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.


by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Natural gas consumption

Recent data shows that the consumption of natural gas is being reduced significantly in Member Statessuch a Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Finland and Austria, while it is increasingsignificantly in Greece and Spain. Does the Council know of any socio-economic reasons for thisdifference? In this connection also, what are the Council’s forecasts with regard to the consumption ofnatural gas in the region of Extremadura?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

Consumption of natural gas has varied over the years and will continue to do so due to different factors,including weather. However, the general trend in the European Community indicates a steady growth. TheCouncil expects this trend to be reinforced by the entry into force of the Directive on natural gas.

The Council has not discussed the consumption of natural gas in any specific region.


by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Safety checks on amusement park attractions

In its reply to Question H-0669/97 (1) the Commission stated it had given a mandate to the EuropeanStandardization Organisations to draw up a European standard for technical specifications for fairgroundequipment. Has this now been done, and does the Commission not agree, that technical specifications arefine as far as they go, but the crux of the matter which needs to be addressed is minimum standards forregular inspection of these attractions to ensure safety is observed at all times?

(1) European Parliament debates (September 1997).



(23 November 1998)

Work on the preparation of safety standards for amusement parks, under the mandate given to theEuropean Standardisation Committee (CEN) by the Commission following the abandoning of plans for adirective taking account of the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council in 1992, is proceedingaccording to the timetable adopted by the CEN. An initial document will be presented to the nationalmembers of Technical Committee No 152 before the end of 1998. Owing to the procedures involved, theCEN does not expect its members (the national standardisation bodies) to vote formally to adopt thestandards until 2000.

Various activities combine to ensure the safety of amusement parks, including regular inspections. For thisreason an inspection procedure is currently included in the information annexes to the draft standards.


by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Social clauses for PHARE

The PHARE programme has become an instrument for providing support for the countries of Central andEastern Europe in preparing them for accession.

It would seem appropriate to ensure, when this programme is implemented, that the funds are used inaccordance with European social policy and that they respect fundamental social rights, within themeaning of the Social Charter, on the basis of the acquis communautaire.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What means are there for ensuring compliance with fundamental social rights when PHAREprogrammes are granted?

2. What would happen if there was found to be a contravention; i.e. what procedures would be activated?

3. Have there been any instances of problems of this nature occurring?


(18 November 1998)

1. One of the prime concerns of the Phare programme is adherence to basic social rights which are partand parcel of the acquis. Hence not only those areas in which there are explicit regulations on labour law,social dialogue, equal treatment, social protection, public health, health and safety at work and for migrantworkers, but also in those ‘soft law’ areas of European social legislation derived from the social charter,are part of the accession driven re-oriented Phare strategy. Whenever draft programmes or individualprojects within Phare are received for approval, due consideration is also given to conformity with thewider definition of the social acquis of the Community.

There are also Phare programmes which deal exclusively with the social acquis in a more narrow sense.Consensus deals with social security reform in the Central and Eastern European countries, and the Lienand Partnership programmes deal with non governmental organizations in the spheres of minority anddisadvantaged groups and of socio-economic operators respectively.


The accession partnerships also set as a medium-term priority preparation of the CEECs in the area ofemployment and social affairs. Allocation of funding is linked inter alia to respect of these priorities.

2. and 3. The Commission is not aware of any Phare programme or individual project violating thesocial acquis of the Community. If it notices or becomes alerted to any such occurrence, the Commissionwill not hesitate to rectify the situation with the appropriate means without delay.


by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Trade between the EU and certain Asian countries

Would the Commission provide figures to show the changes which have taken place in overall EU importsand exports to each of the following countries over the past three years: Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia,Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China and Japan?

Could the Commission also give a breakdown of imports and exports between individual Member Statesand these countries?


(7 December 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Eurostat publication ‘External and Intra-European Union Trade − Monthly Statistics’ (pages 42-43 and 88-95) (1).

(1) Eurostat 10/1998-6B.


by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Incitement to murder in Pakistan

Will the European Commission express its grave concern to the Government of Pakistan over theappearance in the daily ‘Juraat’ newspaper of an advertisement on behalf of militant clerics offering largesums of money in return for the murder of Salman Rushdie, Mirza Tahir, Gohar Shahi and Janti Lal? Thisaction − an incitement to murder − would be a criminal offence in any of the European Union’s MemberStates, and the Government of Pakistan must prevent similar advertisements appearing if it wishes to beregarded as a civilised and law-abiding state.


(13 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member on this matter, of which it was notpreviously aware.


For the information of the Honourable Member it would appear that ‘Juraat’ is an Urdu language, limitedcirculation, local daily newspaper published in Karachi. Despite enquiries with the National library ofPakistan it has not been possible for the delegation of the Commission in Islamabad to obtain a copy of theedition cited in order to verify the precise text.

Further enquiries by its delegation in Islamabad have failed to trace any reaction to the advertisement,whether from the government of Pakistan or from Pakistan based human rights organisations.


by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Consequences of the abolition of duty-free arrangements

At the meeting of Economic and FinanceMinisters of 19 May 1998 in Brussels, the Irish proposal to makean EU-wide study of the implications of intra-Community duty-free sales was rejected. The Germangovernment had explicitly supported the Irish proposal on the basis of the relevant decisions of theBundestag and the Bundesrat. Given that the proposal did not find a majority, the Commission agreed tosubmit a working document on possible instruments to cushion the impact of the abolition of duty-freesales.


1. When will the working document on the instruments available at regional level in connection with theabolition of duty-free sales be available?

2. Is the Commission prepared to envisage further special regional assistance, going beyond the existingregulations, within the framework of the Structural Funds or new special measures?

3. In what way have the coastal regions affected, almost all of which are EU-assisted areas, beensupported since the decision on the abolition of duty-free sales in 1991/92?

4. Does the Commission expect duty-free sales to end in the middle of 1999 as agreed?

Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

1. The Commission paper clarifying the instruments available to Member States to address possibleconsequences of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on 1 July 1999 will be presented as soonas possible and in any event before the end of this year.

2. The Commission is prepared to consider any proposals put forward by national and regionalauthorities for assistance in the eligible areas and under the structural funds pursuant to the existing rulesof procedures.

3. Given that not all structural fund programmes have a specific regional character, the Commission isnot in a position to provide the Honourable Member with a precise figure for the contribution from thestructural funds to coastal regions. It estimates however that, for the current programming period (1994-1999), this contribution could be in the order of ECU 100 000 million (in 1994 prices).

4. Yes.




(26 October 1998)

Subject: Operating licence for quarry in area protected by Natura 2000

Environmental organizations − which have also lodged an appeal with the State Council − claim that theMinistry of Agriculture has granted an operating licence for a marble quarry on Mt Falakron in the regionof Drama. The Drama Forest Inspectorate has already designated it a protected area because of itsexceptional beauty; it also forms part of the Natura 2000 network as a designated ‘B’ area and there areindications that it is the site of an ancient settlement.


1. whether the requisite environmental impact assessments have been carried out to take account of allthe environmental effects of operating the quarry, and

2. whether it intends to ask the Greek authorities to revoke their decision in order to preserve theecological balance and the exceptional beauty of the area?


(19 November 1998)

1. In the region concerned, a site known as ‘Koryfes Orous Falakro’ under Code GR 1140004, iscontained in the list of sites of Community importance (SCI) put forward by the Greek authorities underDirective 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), for inclusionin the Natura 2000 European ecological network. Under Article 6.3 of that Directive any plan or projectthat is likely to have a significant impact on an SCI must be subjected to an appropriate assessment of itsimpact in terms of the intentions regarding site conservation. The authorisation decision is subject to theresults of that assessment. However, that site has still not been selected as an SCI.

2. Nevertheless, the site includes several types of natural habitat and priority species and it should thusautomatically be accepted for the Natura 2000 network in accordance with the Directive’s criteria.Therefore adequate action must be taken by the Member State concerned in order to avoid anydeterioration of that site with a view to its future designation. On the basis of what has been said above,the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to order to establish whether the impact studies whichshould be conducted in pursuance of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certainpublic and private projects on the environment (2) have taken sufficient account of the ecological value ofthe site concerned by the project in question.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.



(26 October 1998)

Subject: Data on fires in Greece

Pursuant to Regulation 308/97 on protection of the Community’s forests against fire, the Member Statesforward data on the number, extent and duration of fires, etc. to the Commission’s responsibledepartments.

This data is considered especially useful for monitoring and evaluating preventive and protectivemeasures for forests in the Member States, as also indicated in the extremely interesting report entitled‘Community system of information on forest fires 1985-87’, published by the Commission’s departmentresponsible for forests.


With a view to enhancing the reliability of the data supplied by the Member States, can the Commissionconfirm that a uniform method is used to record the data concerning the number, extent and duration of thefires and the time-lapse between initial alarm and intervention etc.

Do the Member States notify the Commission’s departments of any change in the manner of recordingevents?


(26 November 1998)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the report on the Community system ofinformation on forest fires 1985-1987 (1).

The reliability of the data supplied by the Member States is guaranteed by Commission Regulation (EC)804/94 of 11 April 1994 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation(EEC) 2158/92 as regards forest-fire information systems (2), which details the set of information thatMember States must transmit to the Commission each year under the Community forest-fire informationsystem.

Any changes made by the Member States to their national data collection systems must comply with theconditions laid down in this Regulation.

(1) Not yet published.(2) OJ L 93, 12.4.1994.



(26 October 1998)

Subject: Treatment of Irish third-level students

Is the Commission aware that returning Irish emigrant families (net immigration to Ireland last year wassome 30 000) are being discriminated against when they try to put their Irish-born children through third-level education systems, since even though the students were born in Ireland, hold EU passports, areregistered voters and their families have no address other than in Ireland, they are deemed to be ‘overseasstudents’ or non-EU citizens under an EU regulation because they fail to meet the three-year residencyrequirement before applying to university with the result that they are being made to pay full tuition fees,etc? Is there any provision in EU law to ensure equal treatment for such people?


(14 December 1998)

The level of tuition fees paid by students in order to follow higher education courses and the criteria forgrants or other financial assistance applied in the Member States, are for the Member States themselves todetermine.

Community law, as interpreted by the Court of justice, imposes on Member States a duty to apply the samecriteria and levels of fees to Community nationals as they do to their own nationals, on the basis of theprinciple of non discrimination on nationality grounds.

The principle of non discrimination on nationality grounds also covers possible differentiated treatmentbetween nationals who did not use their right to free movement within the Community and those nationalswho did use this right (e.g. Irish nationals who returned to Ireland after emigration to another MemberState). However, this principle does not cover the case of Irish nationals who return to Ireland afteremigration to third countries.



by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Russian submarines

Is the Commission aware − as I have been informed − that many nuclear-powered submarines are mooredin Russian fiords close to other countries’ frontiers, and that they receive little or no maintenance, althoughtheir nuclear reactors are still active?

− if so, which directorates-general are dealing with the problem?

− what action has been taken by the European Union on this issue?

− what is the attitude of the countries concerned?

− what are the real dangers?

− and, finally, which officials are dealing with the problem?


(13 November 1998)

The Commission is perfectly aware that spent nuclear fuel from submarines and from icebreakersrepresents a high risk to the environment in the Russion Federation and neighbouring countries. Thisproblem is of particular importance in the North-West of the country.

The Commission attaches great importance to the issue of nuclear safety in the Russian Federation. TheCommunity is the largest contributor to technical assistance in the field of nuclear safety in Russia. Of theECU 470 million of bilateral assistance committed since 1992, the Community has contributed close toECU 300 million (63 %).

The Commission is already supporting a range of projects addressing the issue of radioactive wastemanagement and fuel including undertaking an inventory of all the radioactive waste and spent fuel inNorth-West Russia, an international project to remove spent nuclear fuel from the ship ‘Lepse’ which isused to store spent fuel, the development of casks (containers) for the spent fuel, and providing technicalassistance in the management of spent fuel (storage, transport, disposal).

The Commission, along with Norway and the United States, has signaled willingness to participate in abroader concerted international effort to address this issue, providing the Russian Federation removes theobstacles concerning nuclear liability, customs and tax issues in the implementation of the projects andgrants access to sites and data, as appropriate.

Up to now, the Russian Federation has not removed these obstacles. The Commission uses all themechanisms and bilateral meetings to insist on the urgency of the question. Regular meetings of involvedcountries and the Russian Federation take place in the framework of the contact expert group, createdunder International atomic energy agency auspices. The next meeting is scheduled to take placein November 1998 in Murmansk.



by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Competitions

Can the Commission provide the following statistical information in respect of each of the staffrecruitment competitions held over the last five years: number of applications, number of candidatesadmitted to the written tests, number of candidates admitted to the oral tests and number of successfulcandidates, with the figures in each case being broken down by sex and nationality?


(25 November 1998)

At the end of 1998 the Commission will present a three-year report on the recruitment requirements of theCommunity institutions on the basis of Article 2 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The report willinclude the statistics requested by the Honourable Member.

In the immediate future, the Commission is sending the Honourable Member and Parliament’s Secretariata set of (not necessarily complete) statistics on the A and B open competitions organised and managed bythe Commission in the period 1993-97.



(28 October 1998)

Subject: Action to preserve the Monastery of St Andrew in occupied Cyprus

According to recent reports, the historic Monastery of St Andrew in the Turkish-occupied sector of Cyprushas fallen into a dire state of repair due to being completely abandoned and the failure to carry outnecessary maintenance work.

This information is also confirmed by reports in the Turkish Cypriot press (the newspaper Kibris), whichdescribe the state of the monastery as very poor and point out that it is in immediate need of repair.

What action can the Commission take to remedy the unacceptable state of the island’s cultural heritage?


(13 November 1998)

The Commission is aware of the state of the Monastery of Saint Andrew in northern Cyprus. For the timebeing, however, the Turkish Cypriot authorities refuse to have any dealings with EU representatives, andthe leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community broke off bi-communal contacts at the end of last year. Thisrules out any operation in northern Cyprus and the Commission is therefore unable to consider specificheritage conservation measures.




(28 October 1998)

Subject: Recruitment to the European Environment Agency (EEA)

The European press has on several occasions scrutinised the manner in which the Commission approachesmatters relating to recruitment to the Commission itself and to the decentralised agencies under itssupervision. It is an extremely serious issue which affects the public image of the entire EU and does notlend itself to ‘tongue-in-cheek’ remarks as Commissioner Bjerregaard, who is normally quite aresponsible person, suggested in her answer to my written question E-2566/98 (1). Furthermore,particularly after the recent ludicrous events involving the annulment of competitions to recruit officialsand the allegations of lack of transparency in recruitment procedures, one might expect a more seriousapproach to the whole matter from the Commission and the Commissioners.

Apart from the apparently rather ineffective ‘advice’ which the Commission gives the EEA on itsrecruitment procedures, what practical measures does the Commission propose to take to eliminate theimbalance in the spread of nationalities among its officials and does it intend to ask the Executive Directorof the EEA for full and detailed information whenever staff are to be recruited in order to avoid theexclusion of candidates from countries which are under-represented among the staff of the above-mentioned bodies?

(1) See page 73.


(25 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Questions E-1007/98 (1)and E-28/98 (2)and to its answer to Written Question E-3236/97 by Mr Papayannakis (3). These explainthat the Agency is an independent body under Council Regulation (EEC) 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on theestablishment of the European environment agency and the European environment information andobservation network (4), and that the Commission has no competence in terms of personnel matters orrecruitment to the Agency.

The Commission confirms that it will remind the executive director of the Honourable Member’s concernsand will request a report from the management board of the Agency, with particular reference to how theproposed recruitment procedures will operate in 1999.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 56.(2) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 19.(3) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.(4) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990.


by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Application of Article 171(2)

To date, in how many and which cases has the Commission made use of Article 171(2)?

How many fines has the Commission imposed, and how much money has it collected?



(30 November 1998)

The Court of Justice has never yet ordered any Member State to make a penalty payment for failure tocomply with an earlier ruling by the Court. However, there have been 12 instances where the Commissionhas proposed to the Court that it order a Member State to make such a payment.

In six cases, the Commission decision to propose a penalty payment prompted the Member State toconform and the dispute was settled before the application was submitted to the Court:

− Italy − Protection against radioactivity. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended topropose to the Court was ECU 159 300 per day.

− Italy − Waste-management plan. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended topropose to the Court was ECU 123 300 per day.

− Germany − Underground water. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended topropose to the Court was ECU 264 000 per day.

− Belgium − Wildfowl. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to propose to theCourt was ECU 7 750 per day.

− Greece − Frontistiria, nationality requirement for opening of private schools. The amount of thepenalty which the Commission intended to propose to the Court was ECU 61 500 per day.

− France − Defective products. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intended to proposeto the Court was ECU 158 250 per day.

In one case, the Commission has not yet submitted its application, as a solution is now being found:

− Greece − Public service contracts. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intends topropose to the Court is ECU 39 975 per day.

In two cases, the Commission submitted an application, but the Member State complied before the Courttook its decision:

− Germany − Surface Water − Case C-122/97. The amount of the penalty which the Commissionintended to propose to the Court was ECU 158 400 per day.

− Germany − Wildfowl − Case C-121/97. The amount of the penalty which the Commission intendedto propose to the Court was ECU 26 400 per day.

Lastly, in the following three cases, applications have been submitted, the infringements have still notbeen settled and a Court ruling is pending:

− Greece − Waste − Village in Crete − Case C-387/97. The amount of the penalty which theCommission has proposed to the Court is ECU 24 600 per day.

− Greece − Higher education diplomas − Case C-197/98. The amount of the penalty which theCommission has proposed to the Court is ECU 41 000 per day.

− France − Wildfowl − The amount of the penalty which the Commission has proposed to the Court isECU 105 500 per day.



(26 October 1998)

Subject: Transfer of Macao to Chinese administration − death penalty

The recently renewed EU-Macao agreement contains a commitment for the parties to respect humanrights.


In recent statements, the Member of Parliament and member of the Preparatory Commission Vitor Ng hasaccepted the reintroduction of the death penalty in that territory following its reintegration into thesovereignty of the People’s Republic of China.

Nevertheless, the territory’s penal code − which recently came into force after being adopted with theassent of the Chinese side in the Joint Liaison Group and the remaining in force of which (together with allother legislation applicable at the time of the transfer of sovereignty) was the subject of a commitmentgiven by the authorities of the People’s Republic of China in the Sino-Portuguese joint declaration and inthe Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Macao − not only makes no provision for the deathpenalty but expressly provides for its prohibition and abolition.

How does the Commission assess the implications of the possible reintroduction of the death penalty inMacao from the point of view of the CFSP and EU trade policy, which must respect human rights?

Answer given by Sir Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1998)

The Commission notes that the statement speculating on the possibility of reintroducing the death penaltyin Macau after transfer of its sovereignty to the People’s republic of China had been made to the localpress by Vitor Ng, member of the Macau preparatory committee, in a personal capacity.

The Commission considers that Mr Ng’s reported statement runs directly counter to the legal provisionswhich govern both the present and future administration of Macao.

The Joint Declaration adopted on 26 March 1987 and the provisions of the Macanese Basic Law, bothnegotiated with and agreed by the Chinese authorities, explicitly state that the rights and freedomscurrently guaranteed in Macao will continue without change after the handover. Article 39 of Macao’spresent penal code specifically prohibits the application of the death penalty.

Thus the Commission considers that the safeguards against the introduction of the death penalty in Macaoare firmly in place. The Commssion will continue to monitor carefully the preparations for the handover ofsovereignty in Macao.



(10 November 1998)

Subject: Construction of a golf course in wetlands in Greece

Environmental organisations in Greece, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), local governmentauthorities and other bodies have put forward substantiated objections to the Greek Tourist Board’s plansto build a golf course at Mesonisi in the Stavronikita or Nea Fokaia wetlands in Chalkidiki in Greece.These wetlands are the among the most important in Greece, since they harbour a wealth of bird life:123 species of birds have been identified there, including the white-eyed pochard (aythia nyroca), theblack-winged stilt (himantopus himantopus), the Mediterranean gull (larus melanocephalus), the blackstork (ciconia nigra) and the Dalmatian pelecan (pelecanus crispus). The wetlands are also home to threespecies of tortoise (testudo hermanni, testudo graeca and testudo marginata ) which are covered by AnnexII of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) as ‘animal and plant species of Community interest whose conservationrequires the designation of special areas of conservation’.

It should be pointed out that the wetlands of Chalkidiki which used to be very extensive have shrunkowing to drainage. The few remaining wetlands (including those mentioned above) represent the last hopefor the survival of wildlife in the region: their destruction would completely upset the balance of nature.


Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above state of affairs, what action it intends to take andwhether it is possible to include the above region in the European network Natura 2000, a move whichwould make a vital contribution towards protecting these valuable wetlands from plans to convert theminto a golf course?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.


(5 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-1164/98 byMr Tamino during question time at Parliament’s December 1998 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (December 1998).


by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: European guarantee fund for pensions

Continuing speculation about the future of pensions has prompted a number of Member States to set up apublic reserve fund to finance pensions in the medium and long term.

The fund will come into operation if the social security system becomes inadequate, because of the ageingof the population, to cover possible future discrepancies between contributions and benefits.

Does the Commission consider that it should devise a European version of this by creating a common fundfor the whole European Union, in an attempt, by analogy with the aforementioned national funds, to avoidany future imbalances which may arise in any Member State by introducing a Community system basedon solidarity for the future of all the existing pension schemes in the Member States of the Union?


(16 December 1998)

In the area of social protection, Member States are free to fix their own policies on the organisation andoperation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law on equal treatment formen and women and on social security for migrant workers.

Consequently, Member States may agree to set up a public reserve fund to finance pensions in the mediumand long term, if they so wish. The Commission has no intention of promoting the idea of a common fundof this nature for the whole Community.


by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Commission competition held on 14 September 1998

Competitions are intended to select from among the candidates those who are most suitable (thus deemedto be the best) for filling responsible positions at the Commission. That objective is therefore vital both for


the Community and consequently for the citizens of Europe. The organisational failings which emergedduring the tests held on 14 September 1998 cannot but put the sense of responsibility of those who ran thetests in an unfavourable light. Will the Commission state what steps it intends to take to ascertainresponsibility for the bad management of an operation which was nonetheless extremely expensive andwhat measures it plans to take to ensure that such regrettable episodes do not happen again?


(25 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions P-2922/98,P-2974/98, E-3053/98, E-3079/98, P-3101/98, P-3106/98, P-3136/98 and E-3253/98 by Mrs Napoletanoand others (1).

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1991, p. 164.


by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Retirement provisions for pilots and flight attendants

The Italian government has recently raised the minimum retirement age for flight attendants and pilots.This decision does not seem to have taken due account of the particularly damaging side-effects of flying,including disruption of sleeping patterns, exposure to dry and ozone-rich air, and exposure to levels ofcosmic radiation three times higher than those to which radiographers are exposed. The combination ofthese factors over a period of many years has the effect of reducing the average life expectancy of air crewon retirement to considerably less than the general average. Yet at present no adequate scientific data isavailable on the subject, partly because the results of the research that has been carried out by the airlineshave not been divulged to staff and unions.

In view of the foregoing, would the Commission state:

1. whether any Commission data or studies exist on the subject?

2. whether there are any directives or other documents relating to retirement provisions for employees inthis sector?

3. what are the other Member States’ provisions in this area?


(21 December 1998)

1. The Commission does not have any data or scientific studies on the life expectancy of this categoryof workers, and there is no specific directive relating to their retirement provisions.

2. In the area of social protection, Member States are free to establish their own policies on theorganisation and operation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law onequal treatment for men and women (Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive 79/7/EEC of19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men andwomen in matters of social security (1), and Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on theimplementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social securityschemes (2) as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3)) and on social security for migrant workers (4). Thismeans that Member States are free to set the retirement age for pilots and cabin crew, provided the above-mentioned Community provisions are complied with.


3. As far as trends and policies in the other Member States are concerned, the Commission publishescomparative tables of social security schemes in a general context (MISSOC), but these do not referspecifically to pilots or cabin crew.

(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979.(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.(3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.(4) Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72 (as updated by Regulation (EC) 118/97 − OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).


by Dietrich Elchlepp (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Breakdown of EU subsidies for Baden-Württemberg

1. What subsidies from EU programmes flowed to Baden-Württemberg in 1995-1997?

2. What amounts were involved, for what projects and in what places?


(30 November 1998)



by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Budget Item A-3029

Can the Commission indicate which organisations receive grants from budget item A-3029 and the sumsavailable to each organisation?

Can it also inform Parliament of the criteria applied when projects/organisations are selected under thisitem?


(14 December 1998)

The list of organisations receiving grants in 1998 from budget item A-3029 ‘Assistance for non-governmental international youth organisations’, showing the amounts allocated to each, has been sentdirectly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat-General.

The eligibility and selection criteria for beneficiary organisations were published in the OfficialJournal (1).

(1) OJ C 374, 10.12.1997.



by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Budget line 3029

Could the Commission publish a list of organisations benefiting from grants given under budget line 3029over the last five years?

What is the Commission’s response to criticisms that there is a bias in such subsidies towards Catholicorganisations, whereas non-religious organisations and left-of-centre organisations, even with largememberships, have benefited far less?


(14 December 1998)

Every year the Commission has sent to the Parliament the list of organisations receiving grants from thebudget item relating to ‘Assistance for non-governmental international youth organisations’ (currentlyitem A-3029). The lists of beneficiaries since 1995 have been sent directly to the Honourable Member andto the Parliament’s Secretariat-General.

The eligibility and selection criteria applied were published in the Official Journal in the call for thesubmission of proposals (for the 1998 selection procedure) (1). These criteria do not make any reference tothe religious or non-religious nature of organisations. It can be seen from the list of beneficiaries thatorganisations representing a number of religions are included, and that they make up only a smallproportion of recipients: in 1998, fewer than 10% of the organisations receiving assistance describedthemselves as being primarily of a religious nature. If most of these are Catholic, this is because a largernumber of applications for subsidies were received from Catholic organisations. It should be noted that noapplication from a non-Catholic religious organisation has been rejected in the last few years.

Furthermore, one of the selection criteria is the representativeness of the organisation concerned; thiscriterion has of course also been applied with regard to political organisations.

Finally, it is clear from the list of beneficiary organisations that most are neither religious nor political innature and are instead focused on other objectives, such as certain types of activity for young people, orstudents’ organisations.

(1) OJ C 374, 10.12.1997.


by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: St. Teresa di Lerici sailing school

On 30 December 1993, the local authority in Lerici approved the above project, financed by the Liguriaregional authority and the Community’s Reneval programme.

On 16 April 1997, work on the project was completed for the local authority in Lerici.

To date, five years after the funds for the project were approved and 18 months after work on the projectwas completed, the local authority has still not managed to make the sailing school operational.Furthermore, the fact that the school has remained unused for an extended period has led to thedeterioration of the buildings, which have also been damaged by vandals.


1. Is the Commission aware of the reasons for this disgraceful delay and does it know whereresponsibility for the delay lies?

2. Is it in a position to assess whether the expenditure on the implementation of the project tallies withthe funds made available?

3. Can it state how much funding was made available for the project under the Reneval programme?

4. Do the rules in force stipulate a deadline for the implementation of a project once aid has beengranted?

5. What are the consequences of a deadline not being observed?


(10 December 1998)



Official Journal - EUR-Lex - European Union

Documents

Transcript of Official Journal - EUR-Lex - European Union