ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Lombard hotline

On 23 June 1998 the Commission carried out, without any announcement, checks on four Austrian banks following a tip-off about interest rate agreements in the "Lombard club." To ensure the success of the audits and to improve the flow of information a special Lombard hotline was set up. The following questions relate to the progress in the inquiries and to press statements by the Commission member responsible.

1. What is the Commission's view of the fact that the public announcement of the setting up of a Lombard hotline appeared in only one Austrian daily newspaper and after a delay of several days?

2. Apart from the national print media what other means of communication can the Commission use to disseminate and publish what it regards as necessary information?

3. Despite the meagre information provided how many calls were received by the Lombard hotline?

4. Did these calls provide any relevant information and were they of use in the investigations?

5. What exactly was the meaning of Commissioner Van Miert's statement (in Die Presse of 21 July 1998) that the investigations had produced "a good catch?"

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will appreciate that, as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position to comment on pending proceedings.

The Commissioner was expressing his confidence that the inspections performed in June 1998 yielded documents which might be of interest in the framework of eventual prohibition proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3452/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Slaughter of baby seals in the White Sea

Following my question E-2693/97(1) concerning the slaughter of baby seals in the White Sea in Russia, can the Commission inform me whether it has yet received any response from the Russian authorities on the outcome of the scientific studies on sealing operations which were to be carried out in 1995?

If not, will the Commission once more approach the Russian authorities asking for the results of this research programme?

Is the Commission aware whether the Russian authorities have proposed an annual quota of baby seals to be culled in 1998 and 1999?

Does the Commission intend to take any other action to put an end to this cruel practice?

Will the Commission consider making future funding to the Russian authorities conditional upon animal rights and ending the seal slaughter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1998)

Since its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2693/97, the Commission has not received the results of studies on sealing in the White Sea and continues to approach the Russian authorities with the request to be allowed access to such results, if any. It is also inquiring about established catch quotas and will subsequently make any available information on the issue known to the Honourable Member.

As indicated in its reply to Written Question E-2693/97, following Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom(2), the Commission does not intend to take further measures in this respect.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 129.

(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/98

by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Increased volume of traffic in frontier States caused by the compulsory Austrian road toll disc

Since the introduction of the compulsory road toll disc in Austria, Lindau-Zech, a town on federal road B 31 on the Austrian border, has suffered an inordinate volume of cross-frontier traffic. Many car drivers on their way to Switzerland or Austria come off the A 96 motorway and take federal road B 31 to their destination to save paying for the road toll disc.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to stem the increased volume of traffic in frontier towns and villages in a similar situation?

2. Does the Commission have any plans to require States imposing a road toll on their national territory to waive the toll up to the first exit after the frontier in order to relieve the frontier dwellers of the neighbouring State of the increased volume of traffic?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Austrian charging system for passenger cars has been assessed in detail and found to be in conformity with Community law. However there is no specific Community legislation obliging Member States to abstain from levying user charges or tolls on motorways until the first exit after a border. Under the principle of subsidiarity Member States are free to decide on the introduction of charges on passenger cars for the use of motorways. On the same basis Member States can also decide whether they wish to exclude from these charges the section of the motorway up to the first exit after a border as in fact some Member States do. No representations have been made by Member States seeking to make such a practice compulsory throughout the Union. For the time being the Commission has no plans to propose legislation on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Measures by the Turkish authorities against the Theological School of Chalki

The Turkish authorities have abolished the Supervisory Committee of the Theological School of Chalki with the dual objective of weakening the Oecumenical Patriarchate and intimidating Greeks in Turkey so that they withdraw from the administrative boards of foundations which administer Greek property and it becomes vacant.

Patriarch Bartholomaios has condemned this measure, and the American Administration has already announced its intention of making representations to Turkey about it.

Since the latest unacceptable measures taken against the Patriarchate by the Turkish authorities represent a flagrant violation of human rights, religious freedom, equality before the law and justice, will the Commission say whether it intends to condemn them and take whatever steps are necessary to enable the Theological School of Chalki to function again and to obtain the revocation of the decision abolishing the Supervisory Committee of the School?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3566/98 and E-3581/98 given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 1998)

The Commission is aware of the recent dismissal of the board of directors of the Chalki theological school in Istanbul.

The Commission is concerned by these new developments which have inevitable consequences for human rights in Turkey and in particular for the situation of religious minorities in that country.

The Commission closely follows all aspects of the situation of human rights in Turkey. In its first regular report on progress made by Turkey towards accession, adopted on 4 November 1998, the Commission underlined the problems presented in this regard and the necessity to improve the current situation. In this context, the Commission fully agrees with the conclusions of the European Council held in Luxembourg in December 1997 and which recalled that "strengthening Turkey's links with the European Union also depends on that country's pursuit of the political reforms on which it has embarked, including the respect for and protection of minorities ... ."

In all its contacts with the Turkish authorities, and despite the decision taken by Ankara to suspend any political dialogue with the Union, the Commission is determined to continue to express its concerns on these matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3997/98

by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Child labour in the United Kingdom

Is the Commission aware of the scale of child labour in the United Kingdom, where 500 000 young people under 13 have jobs and 2 million adolescents under 16 are employed, as established in the inquiry carried out by the Low Pay Unit?

Is it not worrying - not to say disturbing - to note that the United Kingdom still retains legislation which lays down only minimum standards governing child labour and the chronic inadequacy of the financial resources employed to enforce that legislation, even at a time when the country has a socialist government?

Does the Commission not see a need to launch - in the form of a directive - a new initiative with the objective of laying down clear Community rules on child labour and guaranteeing children a high level of protection throughout the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

The Commission reiterates the fact that child labour is prohibited under Community law.

Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work(1) requires Member States to take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. In order to enforce this ban, Member States must lay down a minimum working age that is not lower than the minimum age at which compulsory full-time schooling ends, or 15 years in any event.

However, taking due account of the health and safety objectives of the Directive, Member States may make provision in their legislation for certain derogations for children of at least 14 years of age or at least 13 years of age performing light work. Member States making use of this possibility must comply with the limits and conditions laid down by the Directive.

The UK authorities have communicated to the Commission the national legislation adopted to transpose the provisions of the Community Directive. In particular, the "Child (Protection at Work) Regulations 1998" entered into force in the United Kingdom on 4 August 1998. As regards the minimum working age and the age from which certain light work may be authorised, UK legislation does not appear to deviate from the Community rules laid down in Directive 94/33/EC. It is the task of the national authorities responsible for monitoring application of these rules to ensure that they are fully complied with.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Subsidies to the wine industry

I refer to the answer given by Commissioner Fischler (E-2198/98(1)) on the above topic.

It indicates that a proposal for a Council regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the market in wine does provide for expenditure higher than the average over the last few wine years. Is this in addition to the aid which is envisaged under the Agenda 2000 proposals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1998)

The initial forecasts of expenditure in the wine sector under Agenda 2000(2) as presented on 15 July 1997 did not take into account the draft proposal for reforming the sector. These forecasts were based on estimated expenditure as a result of expected production in the following wine year and the legislation in force.

The draft proposal for reforming the common organisation of the wine market presented by the Commission on 16 July 1998(3) (a year after Agenda 2000) provides for schemes to redirect wine-growing to adjust to market requirements and eventually avoid surpluses. The expenditure on this conversion effort will put up spending slightly in the first years after the reform but will produce a rationalisation of the market over the medium term.

The financial framework for Agenda 2000 is being updated as more precise information becomes available. This also applies to the market organisation for wine, which will be included in the new financial perspective covering Agenda 2000.

(1) See page 3.

(2) COM(97) 2000 final.

(3) OJ C 271, 31.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2855/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Sustainable cities and sustainable development

Does the Commission feel that there is any duplication of effort between the Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign, which is financed from Article B4-304, and the Urban Forum for Sustainable Development, which is funded from Article B4-306, and does it feel that there is sufficiently close coordination between the two separate units in DG XI and DG IV which manage these two projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

There is quite a difference between the European sustainable cities and towns campaign and the activities of the network of the Urban forums for sustainable development.

The overall objective of the European sustainable cities and towns campaign is to promote development towards sustainability through "Local Agenda 21" and similar processes by strengthening partnership among all actors within local authorities as well as inter-authority co-operation. Five international networks or associations of local authorities support the campaign by undertaking projects for sustainable development. These projects cover areas such as awareness raising and the exchange of experience for example through good practice seminars, dissemination of information through internet websides or newsletters, development of technical guidance and training as well as the provision of training material. These activities and projects in the framework of the campaign are open to any participating local authority of the campaign. They are coordinated by the campaign office.

The Urban forums for sustainable development were established in 1995. This is an experimental network of 20 cities managed by the Commission. The purpose of each Urban forum is to bring information about Community policies into city life and to create local partnerships to put these policies into practice. They address not only local authorities, but the whole of civil society and especially foster citizen involvement. These activities often make use of innovative information and communication techniques.

The Urban forums' activities are thus of much smaller scale than most of those undertaken by the European sustainable cities and towns campaign and are geared to more direct actions within the participating cities.

Co-operation between the two Commission units involved is close and effective.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4023/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Subject: EU-Macau relations following the transfer of sovereignty on 20 December 1999

Following the example of what it did in the case of Hong Kong, when is the Commission planning to draw up a communication on the future of relations between the EU and the Special Administrative Region of Macau once responsibilities have been transferred to the People's Republic of China? Account should be taken of the need for the application of the "one country, two systems" principle to be guaranteed and of the major role which Macau could play as an "open door" from China to the West and from the EU into China.

When is the Commission intending to submit such a communication, which must be received early enough to enable it to be discussed by Parliament?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Commission strongly supports the application of the one country, two systems policy to the future special administrative regime of Macau.

As confirmed by the responsible member of the Commission during his visit to Macau on 2 November 1998, the Commission intends to prepare a communication to the Council and the Parliament on Community-Macau relations. Following a similar procedure as that followed in the case of Hong Kong, the Commission intends to prepare the communication close to the date of the transfer of sovereignty of Macau to the Peoples Republic of China in the last part of 1999.

That should allow the Commission to raise the main issues to follow in the first year of the implementation of one country, two systems policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4048/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Nuclear safety in Russia and the Union's northern dimension

The reply given by Commissioner Hans van den Broek, on behalf of the Commission, to my quite specific Written Question E-3325/98(1) was very general. It does not comment on any Commission programme of cooperation with regard to nuclear safety in Russia, although everyone knows that, for example, the Commission's document concerning the northern dimension of the EU includes unambiguous operational recommendations on nuclear safety.

What preparatory measures will the Commission adopt or has it adopted on the basis of its document on the northern dimension to enable the operational recommendations on nuclear safety in Russia to be implemented? What timetable does the Commission intend to adhere to in this regard?

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

(12 February 1999)

Under the Tacis programme the Commission is unable to make direct payments to beneficiaries, in this case power stations, even if they cannot pay their employees' salaries. Moreover this type of assistance is unlikely to be effective even in the short term.

The Commission's initial response has been to include an economic component in a number of projects of which managers of nuclear power stations, through on-the-spot assistance projects, directors of institutes and the nuclear authorities (Rosenergoatom, the main operator, and Minatom) in Russia must be made aware.

It will become standard practice to emphasise the economic component of Tacis projects at the very early stage of project definition for future programmes. However, in Russia economic aspects are rarely taken into account in the nuclear sector because of its extremely high political priority. Training of personnel is a huge undertaking and the impact can only be gradual in a sector which despite all efforts remains resistant to influence from the West.

The Commission recently learnt that Rosenergoatom appointed a financial expert as its new deputy Director-General in order to improve its finances. It is understood that there has been a significant improvement in Rosenergoatom's cash position.

The measures proposed under the northern dimension initiative are designed to improve nuclear safety in the region. Their objective is not therefore to provide a response to the financial crisis in Russia even though this may have a potential impact on projects.

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 121.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4054/98

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Payment of contracts under the Al-Invest programme

There are currently 26 contracts signed during 1995 and 1996 within the framework of the Al-Invest programme and implemented in those same years for which payment by the Commission is still pending. The total amount is estimated at around ECU 200 000. Can the Commission explain the reasons for the delay in payments relating to the projects implemented by the European Coopecos and the Eurocentres in Latin America within the framework of the Al-Invest programme?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Most of the 1995 and 1996 dossiers which carried supporting evidence complying with the contract have been processed and the invoices paid.

The 1995 and 1996 Al-Invest contracts for which payment is pending are still being dealt with, either because they are now in the final stages of examination or because supporting evidence for which a repeat request was made and which is vital before a suitably documented payment order can be executed has yet to be supplied. The backlog has been caused by incomplete or incorrect technical or financial reports from the Eurocentros and Coopecos which the Commission has been unable to process fast enough.

Between the beginning of 1997 and April 1998, there was no technical secretariat to perform advance technical examinations. Staff shortages meant that it was only possible to keep operational activities going. Once tender procedures to select experts had been concluded in a manner guaranteeing the requisite transparency, a new technical secretariat started work in April 1998 on tackling the payment backlog by issuing requests for missing supporting evidence to bring about compliance with the terms of the contracts. Responses are being received from the partners involved. The financial management arrangements for payments set up in September 1998 has been working; the backlog is being absorbed, and the partners are once again being helped and supervised in a way which will ensure that this programme, widely recognised as extremely useful, runs fluidly and efficiently.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Production and marketing of wine in Denmark

I refer to the Commission's answer to Question 82 (H-0909/98)(1) during Question Time at the October I 1998 part-session.

- Since Danish wine production does not exceed 25 000 hl a year does this mean that in practice Danish wine producers can in fact use Article 11 and thus sell their wine to the public, or can the wine only be consumed by the producers themselves?

- Is it not only if Denmark wants to become a wine-producing nation (i.e. with more than minimum production) that Council and Commission regulations will have to be amended accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

In view of the economic, administrative and legal implications of this affair, the situation must be examined not only in the light of the legislation currently in force but also of the common organisation of the market which will result from the negotiations currently underway in the Council.

The Commission is carrying out a detailed examination of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) Annex to the verbatim report of proceedings of the sitting of 9 October 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: EU-funded ISPA infrastructure investment in Central and Eastern European countries

The European Union has set up a new Structural Fund instrument, ISPA, to assist Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) which have applied for membership of the EU; the appropriations allocated to it will start to be distributed to major infrastructure projects in the CEECs in the year 2000. As the EU is currently providing only around FIM 600 million to support infrastructure investment in the applicant countries through Phare LSFI, it seems likely that the new assistance will result in a substantial increase in funding.

How much will be allocated to ISPA per annum for the purpose of funding infrastructure investment? What selection procedure will the Commission use to allocate ISPA funding to the various projects?

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

(11 November 1998)

Agenda 2000(1) proposed structural aid for the applicant countries amounting to some ECU 1 000 million per year for the period 2000-2006. This aid, as indicated in the proposal for a regulation establishing an instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA)(2), would be directed mainly towards aligning the applicant countries on Community infrastructure standards in the transport and environmental spheres.

Project selection and approval would be based on national programmes for transport and environment included within each applicant country's national programme for the adoption of the acquis, which forms a key element of their individual accession partnerships. The proposed ISPA regulation (in particular annexes I and II) also contains a number of criteria to ensure the high quality of projects, including their leverage potential and degree of readiness as well as, for example, the need for a cost-benefit analysis including the direct and indirect effects of projects on employment.

(1) COM(98) 2000 final.

(2) COM(98) 138 final.