ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/98 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1998)

Subject: Fourth Framework Programme for Research

How many applications have been submitted from Austria in connection with the Fourth Framework Programme in the field of Research?

How many applications has the Commission approved, and to which specific projects do they relate?

What does this list of projects look like excluding mergers?

Who were the coordinators of these projects, and what were the partner countries involved?

How much money was made available for the individual projects?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Assistance measures for foreign inward investment within the Community

Can the Commission provide statistics on the scale of assistance measures which Member State governments give to companies based in other Member States in order to encourage foreign inward investment? Are any national statistics available for the Member States which show the difference between assistance measures provided for national companies and those which come from other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1998)

The Commission does not possess the information requested by the Honourable Member since the fact as to whether or not an investment is of national origin is not one of the criteria for appraising the compatibility of state aid with the common market. Such information is not provided by Member States when notifying plans for granting aid or in their annual reports on the application of aid approved by the Commission. By the same token, the Commission does not have at its disposal national statistics showing the differences referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Use of hormones in cattle rearing

In the EU the use of hormones in cattle rearing has been prohibited, and not solely for health reasons. Supervision of hormone use is however inadequate. In many countries meat has been found to contain hormone residues. It has been estimated (by Der Spiegel magazine) that as much as ECU 1.5 billion worth of hormones are sold in the EU in spite of the fact that their use is prohibited. What does the Commission think could be done to promote more effective supervision of hormone use?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1998)

According to Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of B-agonists, and repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC ((OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. )), the use of hormones for growth promotion purposes in animals is prohibited, the main reason being the protection of consumers from eating potentially dangerous substances.

Within the Community it is the Member States which are responsible for the control of prohibited substances such as the hormones covered by Directive 96/22/EC. Council Directive 96/23/EC 18,2 lays down the measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products, including the growth promoting hormones. With the implementation by the Member States as from 1 July 1997 of the surveillance measures required by this Directive as well as the imposition of severe sanctions with respect to fraud, it is expected that the illegal use of hormones will be prevented more efficiently.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/98 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States' medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve 'positions close to balance or in surplus'. If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.

But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Germany if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997 ((OJ C 236, 2.8.1997. )) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies ((OJ L 209, 2.8.1997. )), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1467 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (2). The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Germany had a general government deficit of 2.6% of gross domestic product (GDP), and in 1993 the deficit was 3.2% of GDP. This situation led to a Council decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Germany (Article 104c(6) of the EC Treaty). The decision was abrogated in July 1995 - with the 1994 deficit having fallen to 2.4% - but reintroduced in June 1996, as the 1995 deficit had risen to 3.3%. In the period covered by the Honourable Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, Germany budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the 104c of the EC Treaty, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/98 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Telecommunications base stations

Given the concerns about the public health effects of telecommunications equipment, has the Commission carried out any research to assess the effects of locating telecommunications sites in close proximity to residential areas?

Can the Commission confirm whether or not any Member States place restrictions on the location of telecommunications sites or the height of telecommunications masts?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1998)

The Commission has invited a group of eminent experts to look into possible adverse health effects from radiofrequencies. The group reviewed available research, identified gaps where co-ordinated studies should be undertaken in order to obtain better data, and proposed research areas where data are still lacking. The experts' report can be found at the website www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en.

The experts' recommendations for future work have been taken into account in the proposals on the fifth framework programme for research and technological development (RT& D).

As regards concerns about telecommunication base stations the Honourable Member is also referred to the replies the Commission gave to written questions E-737/96 by Mr Malone ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996. )), E-2304/96 by Mr Needle ((OJ C 385, 19.12.1996. )) and E-1593/97 by Mr Waddington ((OJ C 391, 23.12.1997. )).

The Commission has no specific information on Member States' restrictions on the location or height of telecommunications installations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/98 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Use of Community funds by the governments of Member States to reduce their budget deficits

The German daily newspaper 'Die Welt' recently published an article entitled 'Other EU Member States use German funds to join the euro', which explicitly states that Spain and Portugal are using EU funds to improve their budgetary situation with the aim of reducing their deficits in order to join the Economic and Monetary Union.

The article also claims that the EU Court of Auditors is currently investigating these irregular budgetary practices with a view to stopping them. To back up this claim, it quotes the President of the Court of Auditors, Mr Bernhard Friedmann, as saying that the current rules allow unrestricted amounts to be advanced without checks being carried out to ensure that such payments are used correctly and within the time limits set by Community standards, given that 'these subsidies remain in the hands of intermediary bodies instead of being sent to their final beneficiaries'.

In view of the implications of such claims, which are all the more serious given the imminent decision as to which Member States will form part of the first group to be admitted to the euro zone, will the Commission clarify this situation as a matter of urgency and, in particular, answer the following questions:

1. Can it confirm all or some of the above claims? If so, which countries apply such measures, and at what level are they used? What measures have been taken or are envisaged?

2. To what extent do the Commission and Court of Auditors cooperate in this field?

3. How does the Commission interpret the public statements made by the President of the Court of Auditors?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0219/98 and E-0394/98 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission has no information on investigations carried out by the Court of auditors on this subject, nor any other evidence which would support the statement attributed to the President of the Court of auditors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0902/98 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Nationality breakdown of Commission staff

Will the Commission provide a breakdown for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 of its full-time staff by nationality and grade?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Imports of cattle from Australia

Can the Commission confirm whether there are any shipments of live cattle from Australia to the EU and if so, give an indication of the numbers of animals involved and their Member State destination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

So far there have been no shipments at all of live bovine animals from Australia to the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/98 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Spanish tax system

Does the Commission consider that the difference in the rules governing the application of the Patrimonio tax and the Renta tax on Spanish and non-Spanish nationals is discriminatory?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)

The Commission assumes that the Honourable Member is referring in his question to the taxation of immovable property belonging to non-residents.

It should be pointed out that the rules of the Spanish legislation in question which govern income tax and wealth tax in the case of immovable property are not based on nationality but on whether the person concerned has the status of resident or non-resident in Spain.

As to whether the tax arrangements for non-residents could be in breach of Community law, the Commission takes the view that this is not the case as Community law stands at the moment. It would refer the Honourable Member to the detailed answers given to Written Questions E-2459/95 by Mr Vanhecke ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998. )) and E-910/92 by Mr Seligman ((OJ C 58, 1.3.1993. )), which are concerned with the same taxes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Altener II

With reference to the proposal for a Council Decision concerning a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community - Altener II (COM(97)87 final - 97/0106(SYN)) ((OJ C 192, 24.6.1997, p. 16. )), would it not be desirable for the Altener II programme to promote opportunities for collaboration with international cooperation programmes such as MEDA, PHARE and TACIS? The Euro-Mediterranean Energy Forum should incorporate mechanisms for collaboration and coordination with the Altener programme.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)

The proposal for a Decision concerning a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community (Altener II) ((OJ C 192, 24.6.1997. )) primarily concerns the Member States. By virtue of specific protocols, the programme is open to the Member States of the European Economic Area, with a supplementary budget calculated on the basis of the said protocols. For the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus, Article 7 of the proposal for a Council Decision concerning Altener II ((OJ C 192, 24.6.1997. )) allows participation on the basis of the Association Agreements to be set up bilaterally with those countries which so wish and subject to additional appropriations.

Despite its links with TACIS, PHARE and MEDA, ALTENER II is not a programme of international cooperation and so cannot operate outside the Community except in the specific instances described above.

However, the Community strategy set out in the White Paper 'Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy' ((COM(97) 599 final. )) includes international collaboration in a number of forms, as set out in the Action Plan included in the document. In addition, the proposal for a multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector ((COM(97) 550 final. )) provides for mechanisms to step up coordination between energy-policy thematic programmes (including Altener) and programmes set up under other Community policies (such as TACIS, PHARE and MEDA).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1321/98 by Michael McGowan (PSE) to the Commission (24 April 1998)

Subject: Damage to internal trade relations by actions of AB Volvo, Sweden

In view of the fact that AB Volvo, Sweden have failed to honour an agreement made with Synergy Dynamics UK based in my constituency, is the Commission aware of the damage that has been done to cooperative intra-European Union research and development programmes by the actions of AB Volvo, Sweden and will it investigate AB Volvo's handling of this matter?

I refer specifically to the 'Lindholmen' project and the refusal of AB Volvo to meet the costs incurred by Synergy Dynamics UK in designing an International Knowledge Centre for Gothenburg on the instructions of an employee of AB Volvo who wrongly informed them that he was a Director for Management Leadership Development.

AB Volvo, Sweden have refused to settle the debt of GBP 100 000. This has resulted in extreme difficulties for Synergy Dynamics and caused further expense and a huge usage of time for this SME. Further to this, AB Volvo have implied the use of their financial strength to repel any move to claim the money owed through legal procedures by Synergy Dynamics UK for work carried out in good faith and I would further ask the Commission:

1. What protection is there presently or in proposed EU legislation for SMEs dealing with large and multinational corporations?

2. Whether there is any current or proposed legislation to protect SMEs from being intimidated away from litigation in such instances by the financial might of such companies?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1998)

The dispute between the two firms mentioned by the Honourable Member is a question of private law. The Commission does not have any legal means to challenge a firm's behaviour under Community law. There is no legislation dealing specifically with the relationship between small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and large, multi-national corporations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1268/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Council (21 April 1998)

Subject: Further acts of vandalism in Turkey

Another barbaric attack has been carried out on religious monuments in Istanbul. The target this time was the Orthodox Christian cemetery where 51 graves were desecrated. This was preceded by the attack on Ayios Therapon, in which the church warden was savagely murdered, repeated attacks on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and an attack on the Church of the Annunciation on the island of Imbros. The perpetrators (gangs who also target Jewish cemeteries) are never arrested.

Whenever the Council is asked a question on this subject, it answers in general terms full of pious intent. Will the Council say whether it will make specific representations to Turkey in regard to these acts of vandalism, particularly in view of its increasing interest in the 'European orientation' of that country?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The Council regrets the developments mentioned by the Honourable Member and is well aware that under the Treaty of Lausanne signed in July 1923, the Turkish Government undertook to grant full protection to churches, synagogues, cemeteries and other religious establishments of non-Moslem minorities.

The Council wishes to emphasise yet again the importance it attaches to strengthening Turkey's ties with the European Union, but it must also point out that if such ties are to be strengthened, Turkey must continue with the political and economic reforms it has embarked on, particularly in aligning its standards and practices in the field of human rights on those obtaining in the European Union.

Although the particular cases referred to by the Honourable Member have not yet been raised by the Council, it will not fail to inform the Turkish authorities that it sets great store by the adequate protection of human rights. Cooperation in the field of human rights is a continuing feature of the dialogue with the Turkish Government and forms an integral part of the European strategy for Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Award to European firms of projects funded from the EDF

In the context of development aid, DG IV has awarded some projects in developing countries, funded from the EDF, to European firms.

What is the procedure for the award of these projects (e.g. place of publication, information published, submission criteria and deadlines)?

How many responses were received in 1996, from which Member States?

How many projects were awarded to European firms in 1996?

What is the distribution of the projects amont the Member States, and what were the sums involved, in 1996?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1998)

Projects and contracts financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) are covered by the Lomé Convention, a basic principle of which is that aid should be managed jointly with the recipient African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Contracts are awarded by the national authorities in those countries in accordance with the rules laid down in the Convention and in Decision No 3/90 of the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers of 29 March 1990 ((OJ L 382, 31.12.1990. )).

International invitations to tender are published in the Official Journal and in ACP national gazettes. The official notice gives the addresses of places where tender documents can be consulted or from which they can be obtained (in Europe, these are the Commission's offices in the Member States and the Belgian invitation to tender service).

It is also possible to follow the progress of projects and invitations to tender on DG VIII's Internet site: http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg08/dgviii.htm.

EDF invitations to tender and contracts are open on equal terms to companies in both the Member States and the ACP countries. Publication dates and selection criteria are different for each contract. Submission deadlines for open invitations to tender are at least 90 days from the publication date.

Statistics are kept only on the companies which have been awarded contracts. The Commission will forward direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat General statistics for 1996 which show in absolute and percentage terms the spread across the Member States of EDF contracts awarded following international invitations to tender.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Belgian customs officials' bonuses

Is the Commission aware that Belgian customs officials receive a bonus if they catch foreign hauliers with irregularities in their papers?

Does the Commission realise that the system of commissions used by the customs authorities - which applies only to tax contraventions such as the Eurovignette and vehicle licensing - is laid down by ministerial decree and even contains a tariff of payments?

Does the Commission consider such a system to be compatible with the principle of non-discrimination and freedom to provide services under Article 75 and Directive 88/599?

Is the Commission prepared to contact the national authorities on this point with a view to calling a halt to this type of inadmissible practice?

Might the Commission be prepared to list systems of commissions paid in other Member States in respect of fines on foreign drivers, which could be regarded as discriminatory, and to test their compatibility with European legislation?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1998)

The Commission is not aware of a premium system or of a Belgian ministerial decision of the kind referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission will take up this issue with the Belgian authorities in order to clarify the position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: New road toll in Poland

1. Is it true that since 1 January 1998 Poland has been levying a toll on Polish roads and that the tariff are supposed to be in line with the Eurovignette?

2. Is it true that the tariffs for the Polish vignette are four times greater than the Eurovignette?

3. Is it true that it is harder for foreigners to obtain vignettes than for Poles?

4. Does the Commission intend to take action to nullify the consequences of the introduction of the new road toll in Poland?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

On 3 December 1997 the Polish ministry of Transport and Shipping issued an ordinance setting the new level of road charges to apply as of 1 January 1998. The ordinance was issued on the basis of the Polish law on the conditions governing international road transport of 2 August 1997. This law aligned the structure of the Polish road charging system with the main features of the so-called Eurovignette directive ((Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )), specifying that the same charges for the use of the Polish infrastructure should apply to both domestic and foreign vehicles engaged in international transport. The ordinance specifies the amount of the charges to be paid in the form of vignette-type cards on a daily, weekly, monthly, six-monthly or annual basis. In Poland the daily rate is about four times higher than that of the Eurovignette and the annual rate is only slightly higher than the Eurovignette annual rate. Foreign hauliers have to obtain these cards at the border crossings upon entry of Poland.

Poland is under no obligation to take over either the level or the proportionality of the Eurovignette-charges. However, the level of the Polish road charges will be discussed in a special road transport meeting with the Polish authorities. The Commission is not aware of any difficulties for foreign hauliers in obtaining these cards at the borders, however this matter will also be raised at the aforementioned meeting.