WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Sanctions imposed on Burma.
C 203 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 prejudge the allocation between the Commission and national competition authorities of cases involving the application of Article 86. In a legal exception system like the current one, the Commission is in principle better placed than national competition authorities to deal with such cases. As to national courts, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice they have jurisdiction to apply Article 86. (1) OJ C 313, 15. 10. 1997. (2000/C 203 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2023/99 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from subsidies in the steel sector 1. What does the phrase áany aidí mean in Article 1(1) of Decision No 2496/96/ECSC establishing Community rules for state aid to the steel industry (1) in the light of the practice of the Commission and the Council of increasingly deciding on exemptions from the strict ban on subsidies in the steel industry? In future will the Commission take the phrase áany aidí literally and authorise only those forms of aid 2. which it has declared to be permissible? (1) OJ L 338, 28. 12. 1996, p. 42. Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 December 1999) The scope of the term áaidí 1. in Article 1(1) of Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry is meant to cover any aid. This decision, commonly referred to as the steel aid code, was approved under the procedure of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, as derogation to the general principle in Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty that declares any aid to the steel industry to be incompatible. The comments made by the Honourable Member seem to refer to decisions taken by the Commission to approve restructuring aid to certain steel companies. Like the steel aid code, these decisions were approved under the procedure of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. When approved, they were considered as fulfilling the Community interests and accordingly considered as equivalent to Community aid. These decisions have not been taken as derogation to the steel aid code but, as the latter, as a derogation to the ECSC Treaty. 2. Already when the Council gave its unanimous assent to the last group of such decisions, in 1993, it declared that such would be the last time and no Member State has since then presented a new request for use of derogation under Article 95. (2000/C 203 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1999) Subject: Sanctions imposed on Burma In the light of continuing repression and discrimination practised by the military regime in Burma, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that sanctions imposed against them are enforced? 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/119 Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1999) The Commission fully supports the continued and consistent application of the Union common position with regard to Burma/Myanmar, given the continued human rights abuses taking place in the country. The common position ü adopted in October 1996 ü re-affirmed the then existing measures relating to the expulsion of military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of Burma/Myanmar in Member States and the withdrawal of military attachØs for diplomatic representations in the country, an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment, and the suspension of non-humanitarian aid and bilateral assistance for development programmes. It introduced a ban on entry visas for senior members of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) senior members of the military or security forces, and their families, as well as the suspension of high-level bilateral visits by ministers and government officials. The common position was reinforced in October 1998 by extending the ban on visas to include transit visas and by applying it to Burmese authorities in the tourism sector. The Council decided on 11 October 1999 to renew of the common position for six months. In addition, an enquiry conducted in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 3281/4 of 15 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalised tariff preferences (1995 to 1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countrie (1), confirmed that the authorities in Burma/Myanmar had routinely used forced labour, not only for military operations, but also for civilian and military infrastructure projects. The Commission recommended the removal of Burma-Myanmar from access to tariff preferences granted by the Regulation. The Council Regulation applying this recommendation came into effect in May 1997 and remains in force. (1) OJ L 348, 31. 12. 1994. (2000/C 203 E/151) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/99 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 November 1999) Subject: Effects on health of mobile phone masts in residential areas In certain residential areas in Spain, including the town of La Unión in Murcia, there is widespread concern among residents caused by the presence of mobile phone masts and base stations and their possible effects on health. for a Council Recommendation With reference to written question E-1788/98 (1) and the proposal presented by the Commission on the limitation to exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields 0 Hz-300 GHz (COM(1998) 268 final): 1. Is the Commission aware of the public concern that exists in Spain? 2. Does the Commission agree that the siting of mobile phone masts in residential areas without protection and/or isolation measures is damaging to health? 3. Will the Commission give details of progress on the above proposal for a Council recommendation and of current legislation on exposure of citizens to electromagnetic radiation and how it is being implemented in the Member States? (1) OJ C 50, 22. 2. 1999, p. 93