ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1228/97 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Discrimination against Union citizens in the Federal Republic of Germany

Union citizens who apply in the Federal Republic of Germany for an unlimited residence permit under the Federal German law on residence are required, pursuant to paragraph 7a(1)(3) of that law, to prove that they have adequate housing as laid down in paragraph 17(4) of the law on aliens. They must provide this proof even if they have been living in Federal Republic of Germany for many years and are married to a German citizen.

1. Does the Commission regard this rule as compatible with the requirement not to discriminate against Union citizens in the European Union, as laid down in Article 6 of the EC Treaty?

2. What view does the Commission take of this provision in the light of the introduction of Union citizenship and the principle of equal treatment of Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

The German Law on residence by Community nationals (Aufenthaltsgesetz/EWG) provides for two types of residence permit: a permit valid for at least five years (in accordance with the relevant Community legislation) may be issued under paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Law, while a permit which is valid indefinitely may be issued under paragraph 7a (subject to requirements not laid down in Community legislation being met, such as suitable accommodation ((In Community legislation, this requirement exists only with reference to workers' families-see Article10(3) of Regulation(EEC) No 1612/68 (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968). ))).

Both options are available to Community citizens. The relevant Community legislation requires Member States to introduce residence permits which are valid for at least five years. That requirement is met by paragraphs 1 and 3 of the German Law. Community citizens may also take up the second option, i.e. residence permits which are valid indefinitely under paragraph 7a of the Law. However, such permits, which confer a number of additional advantages, are issued on the basis of national legislation which may contain specific requirements different to those stipulated by Community legislation.

Provided that Community citizens are in all cases entitled to be issued with a residence permit which complies with the requirements laid down by Community legislation, it is admissible for national law to provide for the existence of other types of residence permit issued on the basis of national law and conferring additional advantages in return for compliance with additional requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0859/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Safety at work

With regard to budget heading B3-4310: Health protection, hygiene and safety at work, including a subsidy for the International Labour Office, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1572/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Discrimination on the grounds of age

In the near future the European Union could enact provisions against discrimination on the grounds of age if the proposals for reform debated at the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) are accepted by all the Member States in June. To underpin the new legislation, a new Article on discrimination (6a) would be included in the Treaty, whose scope would be extended to include discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, ethnic and social origin, religion, disability and sexual orientation.

This is a highly topical subject at a time of particularly high unemployment and an almost exponential increase in the average age of European citizens.

Can the Commission state whether there is any truth in the various press reports on this subject, as mentioned above?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1560/97 by Mr Ilaskivi ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 143. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2145/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling requirements

How are the supervisory bodies to check compliance with labelling requirements?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Alitalia restructuring plan

For the past year or so, under the procedure laid down in Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome, the Commission has been considering the restructuring plan for the Italian airline, Alitalia, which consists mainly of a capital transfer estimated to be worth over LIT 3 100 billion, LIT 1 500 billion of which is to be provided by IRI, the state holding company which has a 90% stake in Alitalia.

The views expressed to date by the Commission have not been positive: there are many doubts about the forecasts regarding Alitalia's future economic prospects submitted by the Italian authorities and about the ability of the new company, Alitalia Team SpA, to effect a genuine and lasting reduction in operating costs. Two other oral questions which the author is also tabling deal with the award by Alitalia and Alitalia Team of contracts for various transport services relating to the management of Leonardo da Vinci airport at Fiumicino (Rome). These contracts were recently awarded to various companies, which are identified in the questions referred to above, without recourse to a tendering procedure; Alitalia and Alitalia Team therefore have no guarantee as to the quality and competitiveness of the bids submitted by those companies.

Substantial savings might have been made had a different procedure been used for the award of the contracts.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. its views on the above matter?

2. whether a different, more convincing approach to genuine economic recovery on the part of Alitalia and Alitalia Team, not least in the above cases, might lead it to view the plan in a more favourable light?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1997)

The Commission has thoroughly examined the Alitalia's restructuring plan before taking its decision on 15 July 1997. In particular, it was essential to be sure that the airline will be viable in the long run and that the operation will not affect trading conditions and competition in the aviation market to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. In the course of discussions with the Commission, several significant improvements were made to the programme.

The Commission does not seek to substitute itself for Alitalia's management in running the company. The contracts for various transport services relating to the management of Fiumicino airport, referred to in written questions no 1858/97 and 1859/97 submitted by the Honourable Member, do not have a major impact on Alitalia's long-term viability and therefore were not considered to be relevant in the context of the State aid case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Labelling information

What sort of information should the labelling provide, and in what form?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2062/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (16 June 1997)

Subject: 24-hour travel permit for day-trippers' travel to France and/or Belgium

Until fairly recently it was possible to obtain in the UK a 24-hour permit which would allow the holder to travel to France and/or Belgium on a day trip without the need for a full British passport. This permit has now been withdrawn and the loss is having a significant impact on the day trip business in London and the south-east of England.

Is it possible for this concession to be reintroduced and if so, what would be the likely timescale for its implementation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1997)

Community law ((Articles 2 and 3, Directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restrictions on mouvement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families - OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. )) provides that a citizen of the Union may enter and remain in another Member State on the basis of a valid identity document (an identity card or a valid passport). Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to such nationals, or renew, an identity card or passport. The passport must be valid at least for all Member States and for countries through which the holder must pass when travelling between Member States. Where a passport is the only document on which the holder may lawfully leave the country, its period of validity shall be not less than five years.

In the past, some Member States have signed bilateral agreements recognising the British visitor's passport as a valid travel document for a short period. As these agreements were negotiated and signed solely by the Member States concerned, they remain sovereign to renounce them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2079/97 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Expert groups

How many expert and advisory groups are used by the Commission in total and in each DG? How many of these groups are used for the purpose of project selection?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the list of committees contained in Annex 1 to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1997, and to the note on the operation of committees in 1995 that was sent to Parliament on 28 June 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Bureaucratic and financial obstacles put in the way of beneficiaries of ESF, ADAPT, Now, Horizon and Youthstart by the Italian Government

From a comparative study it emerges that Italy is the only Member State of the Union to impose financial restrictions, in the form of bank guarantees, on entities (almost always non-profit-making) which have access to funding under the European Social Fund, the ADAPT programme and the employment initiatives (Now, Horizon and Youthstart).

In an information note dated 9 May 1997 the Italian Ministry of Labour stated that a bank guarantee must be provided even for payments to be made from Community resources.

Does the Commission intend to ascertain, without further delay, whether the obligation to provide a bank guarantee imposed by the Italian State on those who wish to obtain EU funding is legitimate and compatible with the Treaties?

Does the Commission intend to ascertain definitively whether other Member States have similar procedures?

Finally, does the Commission intend to ask the Italian State to discontinue this behaviour which constitutes a serious obstacle to the expenditure objectives set by the Commission for the European Social Funds and the employment initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997)

Making the granting of national and Community assistance conditional on the existence of a bank guarantee is a national decision.

In principle, such a procedure does not conflict with Community legislation.

Only Italy imposes an across-the-board requirement for a bank guarantee. Other Member States have introduced measures to safeguard the funds allocated.

The decision to establish a bank guarantee system is a matter for national jurisdiction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Inequality of taxation on private vehicles between Greece and the other Member States of the European Union

By Law No 2459/97, the Republic of Greece has abolished exemptions in respect of the import of private vehicles, but not of other personal effects, for one single category of Greek returning to Greece, namely persons returning to settle permanently in Greece, having been employed or self-employed abroad for more than two consecutive years.

Furthermore, it imposes special consumer taxes and VAT at a level which depends on the date of definitive establishment of the owner in Greece, and makes the date of issue/procurement of the immigration document required by the customs authorities the criterion for calculating the amount of taxes due. No attention at all is paid to the fact that the vehicles in question are not used passenger vehicles purchased on the intra-Community market in Greece and should not be taxed under this regime, since they have already been registered in other Member States; furthermore, no account at all is taken of the decline in the value of the vehicles in assessing their tax value.

Will the Commission say what scope it has for abolishing these taxes, since the owners of the vehicles would never have purchased them, if they had known that they would have to pay taxes on them?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1997)

The Honourable Member refers to a situation in which individuals who have purchased and paid VAT on a car in the Member State in which they were normally resident have transferred that vehicle to another Member State in which they plan to establish their new normal place of residence.

In such cases, Community law, as laid down in the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) ((OJ L 145, 13 June 1977. )), does not require VAT to be charged again.

If the Honourable Member has knowledge of particular cases of this kind, the Commission would like to examine them. It would not fail to take the necessary measures if the principles of Community law were found not to have been observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: UNGASS Conference 23-27 June 1997

What measures does the EU intend to adopt to meeting its goal of reducing CO2 in transport and agriculture?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

As far transport is concerned, the major contribution to the CO2 emission reduction is expected to come from the full implementation of the Community strategy to reduce CO2 from passenger cars ((1 [COM(95) 689 final; Council Conclusions of 25 June 1996. )). A further potential lies in a reduction of traffic in urban areas and improvement of road freight transport (better logistics). Furthermore, there are long term actions which include efforts to promote modal switch, especially from road to rail, the promotion of short sea shipping, traffic management programmes, fair and efficient pricing, along with a series of other measures.

The major problem as regards emissions in the agricultural sector is methane emissions, which can be expressed in CO2 equivalent. In general terms, common agricultural policy (CAP) reform in 1992 halted increases in some animal sectors thus tending towards a stabilisation of methane emissions from livestock. In the beef sector production has tended to stabilise since 1992 due to decreased cattle numbers. In the dairy sector production has been stable since the quota system came into force in 1984 with very significant decreases in dairy cow numbers. In the sheep sector the long-term upward trend was halted in 1992 with the introduction of a premium quota regime. Since then production has stabilised and sheep numbers have declined significantly. In the poultry and pig sectors there have been constant rises in numbers and production, due to increasing demand and in part to their benefiting from more competitive cereal prices since the 1992 CAP reform. Specific measures which focus solely on reducing CO2 emissions are not foreseen in the CAP. However, limitations on production and falling livestock numbers in the cattle and sheep sector will lead to a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions (including methane) in the agricultural sector from these sources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2095/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Electronic scrap

1. What plans are there for avoiding toxic materials in electronic scrap, e.g. fire retardants or heavy metals?

2. a) How many installations are there in the EU authorized to process material treated with halogen-based fire retardant?

2. b) Are there enough such installations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1997)

1. At Community level no legislation exists to prevent the use of toxic materials in electrical and electronic equipment which constitute particular problems when the products are thrown away.

The Commission has information on pilot projects dealing with the environmental impact of certain hazardous substances, such as mercury or halogenated flame retardants, and their possible substitution.

2. a) On the basis of Article 1 Section 4 of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste ((OJ L 377, 31.12.1991. )) certain compositions of halogenated flame retardants may be classified as hazardous waste. Article 8 of the Directive would apply to those flame retardants which are qualified as hazardous waste. Article 8 foresees that Member States shall send the Commission information on those establishments or undertakings which carry out disposal or recovery of hazardous waste principally on behalf of third parties and which are likely to form part of the integrated network referred to in Article 5 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975. )).

Member States were obliged to provide information on these establishments by 12 December 1994. In spite of this obligation the Commission has received very limited information on these installations so far. Only the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Spain provided respective information. None of the installations of these Member States is specialized in the treatment of halogenated flame retardants.

Furthermore, the Commission does not have information on installations authorized to treat these materials.

2. b) In the absence of relevant information the Commission cannot judge whether enough such installations exist.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: 'Second chance' schools

According to EUROPE magazine, 6988 of 5 June 1997, six 'second chance' schools have been set up in various regions of the European Union, one of them in Attica in Greece.

Will the Commission say:

1. under which programme is this action being funded and what level of funding is involved?

2. what stage has the above project reached in Attica and for whom is it intended?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 September 1997)

1. The Commission will provide technical assistance to the project leaders in the three municipalities (Athens, Peristeri, Nikea) through the selection of a consultant who will identify financial resources at local, national and Community level. As far as the Community level is concerned, objective 1 of the European regional development fund (ERDF) as well as objective 3 and 4 of the European social fund (ESF) will be targeted, depending on the type of costs involved. The regular programming cycles and procedures for the structural funds will then be followed. There is not a specific budget line for these pilot projects.

2. These pilot projects aim to provide a new opportunity for professional and social insertion through education and training for young people who are unemployed and lack basic skills and paper qualifications. These are young people who have failed at school but are now beyond the compulsory school attendance age. The Commission has so far worked on a 'one project per Member State' basis and has identified, in close consultation with the different Member States, projects in France (Marseille), Spain (Bilbao), Finland (Hämeenlinna), Germany (Halle), Portugal (Seixal), Greece (Attiki), the Netherlands (Heerlen) and Denmark (Ribe). The Commission is also in the process of setting up a European exchange of information network between the pilot projects on the one hand and between the pilot projects and other 'good practice' initiatives of Member States on the other hand.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2517/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Alternative to animal testing

The Fraunhofer Working Party on Toxicology and Environmental Medicine (ATU) in Hamburg, together with the Techno Medical Gesellschaft für medizinische Technologie mbH in Castro-Rauxel, have developed a process in which offal (pigs' tails) is used for testing cosmetics, thus making animal testing unnecessary.

1. Is the Commission aware of this process?

2. Has it supported the project with European funding?

3. What is its view of the development results?

4. Does it consider that animal testing in the cosmetics industry will become unneccessary as a result?

5. Will it take this development into account in future regulations?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

Hitherto the Commission has been unaware of the scope for using pig's tails as substitutes for experiments on live animals in order to test the effectiveness of cosmetic products or their ingredients. It has therefore not been in a position, by granting Community funding, to support the development of similar processes which could prove to be alternative methods for the future. True to its well-known position regarding this matter the Commission is keeping itself informed of any developments in this area which would spark alternative methods with a view to their scientific validation by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), and then to their acceptance by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in accordance with the spirit of Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending, for the sixth time, Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products ((OJ L 151, 23.6.1993. )) which is aimed at the banning of cosmetic-product experiments on animals.