WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. CE mark.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/29 been concluded. The commitments correspond to investments of € 559 million. The grants are made in conformity with contracts concluded between the investor and the Portuguese authorities. The European regional development fund (ERDF) and European social fund (ESF) pay 75 % of the public expenditure financing the aid schemes providing the grants. According to the Portuguese authorities, they have no knowledge at redundancies or relocations linked to the projects carried out by Siemens. this stage of any collective the terms of a grant contract concluded with the Portuguese If an enterprise were not to respect authorities, it would be for these latter to take the legal action referred to in the contract, including, if necessary, measures to ensure a refund of the relevant part of the grant. In the next programming period, Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions of the structural funds (1), provides that the Member States shall ensure that an operation retains the contribution from the funds only if that operation does not, within five years of the date of the decision of the national authorities or the managing authority on the contribution of the funds, undergo a substantial modification resulting notably from a cessation or change in location of a productive activity. In the guidelines issued earlier this year for the next programming period, there is a statement of principle that the structural funds should not be used for the mere relocation of existing activities. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 219 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: CE mark The CE mark is a requirement for the free movement of goods within the EU. From the start it was intended only as a European passportí for European products. The greatest reservations concerning the original Commission proposal related to the fact that the CE mark might be seen by consumers as an indication of quality. Such considerations were raised in the report by the relevant European Parliament committee on the Council decision concerning modules and the CE conformity marking (93/465/EEC). In its resolution of 12 February 1999 the European Parliament áadvocates a graduated scheme of European conformity symbols that, in addition to the CEí symbol, will also provide for voluntary private or statutory conformity symbolsí. In section 14 of his answers to the European Parliamentís questionnaire the future Commissioner Erkki Liikanen likewise states that ágreater recourse to European standardisation, certification and accred- itation are important elements for increasing transparency and confidence in the markets by regulatory and voluntary meansí. Despite these pronouncements, uncertainty still pervades the business world as a result of changes made by the Commission or so-called translation errors. 1. What specific measures and changes has the Commission in mind as regards the directives or other texts relating to the EC mark and will it in future comply with the European Parliamentís wish that voluntary and widely recognised private quality marks should be accepted in addition to the CE mark? 2. In the opinion of a business-friendly Directorate-General for Industry, should any restriction or even a ban on private marks additional to the CE mark not be excluded since such a ban could scarcely be imposed on competitors from third countries (for example, U1 marks from the USA) and would therefore significantly distort competition? C 219 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1999) The CE mark substantiates the conformity of industrial products placed on the Community market 1. with all the obligations incumbent on manufacturers under technical harmonisation directives which require the mark to be affixed as proof of compliance with the safety, public health and user protection requirements. The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty provides, in Article 95 (ex Article 100a), for a high level of protection and that the CE mark thus conveys this message. With regard to the divergent interpretation given in the Member States to the CE mark as regards its meaning and scope, the Commission has taken steps to clarify the situation to determine, in particular, any potential overlapping betewen CE marking and voluntary national marks. The Commission will shortly publish a guide on the new approach and the global approach. The Commission leaves it to the market to confirm the important role of voluntary marks which have a genuine added value for all economic operators. However, the Commission opposes the affixing of marks encroaching on the scope covered by CE marking. 2. The multiplication of marks on the Community market, which have in some cases become necessary to ensure access to points of sale, entails considerable costs for European producers. Any overlapping between marks is a waste of resources. This multiplication of marks hampers the free movement of products and is detrimental to the competitiveness of companies. Moreover, the Commission is not convinced that a profusion of marks serves the consumerís need for information. The Commission has therefore come out in favour of a development that averts the proliferation of marks. Moreover, the Commission intends to compile a report on the implementation of Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 (1) concerning the conformity assessment procedures used in the technical harmonisation directives and CE marking for a global evaluation of the situation at the internal level and in relations with non-member countries following the implementation of certain agreements on mutual recognition. (1) OJ L 220, 30. 8. 1993. (2000/C 219 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998) Can the Commission state to what extent funding or subsidies have been awarded (with payments already disbursed, or not), and to what bodies (public or private), institutions, undertakings, cooperatives or individuals, in connection with the Biomed 2 programme (1994-1998) included in the fourth framework programme (budget of ECU 358 million, equivalent to slightly less than ITL 700 billion? Have the actual deployment of the funds and the successful outcome of the initiatives been verified? Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1999) The Biomed 2 programme, which covered all main areas of biomedical research, received a total of 3 550 multinational projects during the years 1995-1998. A total of 617 research contracts involving about 6 100 different teams were signed and funded. All 617 research projects are continuing in 1999 and consist of 287 concerted actions (148 of them ending in 1999), and 330 shared cost actions (157 of them