ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3583/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Suspension of funding for the Operational Programme on Telecommunications in Greece

In its answer to my Question H-0859/98(1) the Commission stated that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the decision on financial support for the operational programme on telecommunications, it had announced to the Greek authorities its decision to suspend payments for the above programme. Article 4 of the above decision specifically states that, in the event of a failure to respect the timetable for the transposition of certain directives, ERDF funds will be suspended. Will the Commission say whether subprogramme 5 "Human Resources" in the programme on telecommunications which is funded exclusively by the ESF is affected by this suspension of payments?

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

(28 January 1999)

As indicated in its answer to oral question H-859/98 by the Honourable Member during question time in the October 1998 part-session(2), the Commission has announced its decision to suspend payments for the operational programme on telecommunications, which forms part of the infrastructure priority in the Community Support Framework for Greece.

The training activities in subprogramme 5 are strictly tied to the infrastructure measures and new services envisaged under this operational programme. These training activities constitute a separate subprogramme for purely administrative reasons, namely to achieve better financial management under each fund. The decision to suspend payments therefore applies to any Community fund involved in financing the above operational programme.

(1) European Parliament debates (October 1998).

(2) European Parliament debates (October 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3808/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Guidelines for SMUs

In its press release on the proposal to revise the EMAS regulation the Commission states that it wants to take special measures for small and medium-sized undertakings by drawing up guidelines to ensure that approving authorities respect and show an understanding of their practices.

As the guidelines have not yet been finalised, how does the Commission contemplate drawing them up? Who will participate in any working party? How will the Commission ensure rational dialogue with the SMUs? Could consideration perhaps be given to inviting a number of SMUs from all the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 1999)

On 30 October 1998 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation allowing participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme(1) (EMAS) which revises Council Regulation (EEC) 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme(2). Article 10 of this proposal provides for a number of measures that are designed to promote participation by organisations in this voluntary system and that are geared, in particular, towards small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The measures envisaged are spread among the Member States and the Commission.

As far as the Commission is concerned, special provisions are in place for drawing up guidelines for the benefit of certified environmental inspectors responsible for verifying that an organisation is in compliance with all the requirements laid down under the EMAS Regulation and that the information produced is true and reliable. To the extent that these inspectors are required to operate at the sharp edge when it comes to implementing this Regulation at organisational level, with special reference to SMEs, it is crucial that they are fully conversant with the functioning of SMEs, so as to ensure that verification reflects the realities of the situation.

These guidelines have been drawn up jointly in collaboration with certified environmental inspectors and the European Union of Crafts and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (UEAPME). The degree of European representativeness of this organisation will ensure that proper account is taken of the position of SMEs in the various Member States. It is therefore entirely feasible to use the UEAPME as a channel for undertakings wishing to participate in the elaboration of these guidelines.

(1) COM(98) 622 final.

(2) OJ L 168, 10.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2882/98

by Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Reduction of potato starch export refunds

The Cereal Management Committee decided on 13 August to apply a lump sum reduction of the export refund for potato starch of ECU 10 (maize basis), which immediately brought this sector into a position of imbalance and "non-competitiveness" with other starches.

In the report from the European Parliament of 28 April 1998 on the prolongation of the potato starch quota system, the vital principle of equilibrium between the different types of starch was recognised and supported - and furthermore confirmed in Council Regulation 1284/98(1) on 16 June 1998.

In the light of this very sensible balance and the upcoming changes in the common agricultural policy (Agenda 2000) can the Commission indicate:

1. Why this principle of equilibrium, which always has been and still is a cornerstone of the EU starch policy, has been disregarded in the calculation of the export refunds for potato starch on 12 August 1998?

2. Whether it is prepared in future to follow the statements from the European Parliament as well as the Council regarding injustice through balance in the starch sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

1. On 13 August 1998 it was decided to apply a lump sum reduction to the export refund for potato starch of ECU 10 per tonne (maize basis) without changing the amounts for other starches, and in particular maize starch, due to the lack of transparency on the maize market during the difficult period between marketing years, and the fact that the new potato crop would become available from mid-August.

From 11 September 1998, the normal situation of equivalent refunds for starch and maize starch was restored.

2. The Commission would like to recall its report to the Council establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch, of 11 November 1997(2) and in particular the following remark within the framework of Agenda 2000:

"Since the non-cereal starch and compensation arrangements have always been governed by the basic cereals Regulation (link to maize), the adjustment of those arrangements will follow the measures taken for maize as part of the Agenda 2000 decisions."

(1) OJ L 178, 23.6.1998, p. 3.

(2) COM(97) 576 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Emergency aid for the Sudan

The largest country in Africa currently finds itself in the grip of a severe crisis which has placed 1,2 to 2,6 million lives at risk. The number of children already caught up in the famine sweeping the Sudan stands at 600 000. Furthermore, a 15-year civil war has compounded the plight of the country, leaving its people all but bereft of the means with which to survive unaided and plunging them into poverty.

How does the Commission intend to respond to this situation? Has it put together a humanitarian aid programme to provide famine relief? If not, does it intend to do so in the near future, and in what form?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 1998)

The Commission has been active in providing assistance to victims of war in Sudan for many years. In 1997, the Commission was the single most important donor of humanitarian assistance in Sudan, with a total of ECU 21,4 million. These funds were allocated to the United Nations agencies (United Nations international children's emergency fund (Unicef) and the World food programme), to the Red Cross and to various non governmental organizations (NGOs). They were also used to finance the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) flight system, which provides vital air transport of personnel and supplies to otherwise inaccessible locations in Sudan.

This year, in view of the severe problems created by drought and an intensification of fighting, the Commission has so far provided a total of ECU 54,8 million. For the allocation of this sum, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2643/98 by Mr Mc Cartin(1).

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 6.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2890/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Papua Botanic Garden

The world's first botanic garden is situated in Papua in the area bordering the ancient Basilicas of Sant' Antonio and Santa Giustina. It was founded in 1545 by the Venetian Republic and is of such immense value today that it has been listed by UNESCO as a world heritage site.

The Garden, which is managed by the University of Papua, is at present in a critical state with new buildings being constructed along its boundaries which have cut off the ground water essential for the upkeep of its many rare and ancient plants. A plan has been drawn up to save the Garden from the indiscriminate building works next to it which provides for the purchase of the surrounding land, the demolition of the buildings under construction, the establishment of a protective belt around the Garden and the amalgamation of the area covered by the ancient Garden with those of the Basilicas of Sant' Antonio and Santa Giustina. This plan, however, calls for an enormous sum of money (ITL 30 000 million has been quoted) which the Italian authorities responsible - the University of Papua, the Commune of Papua, the Veneto Region and the Italian Government - have not managed to find.

As part of a pilot project for the conservation of the European architectural heritage the Papua Botanic Garden received a subsidy of ECU 31 829 in 1993 from the Commission of the European Communities for the restoration of the stone balustrade of its boundary walls (ref: 93/IT/83). Can the Commission therefore say how it proposes to safeguard the investment which it made at that time and what Community programmes it believes might be useful for the protection of this heritage, which the world is at the risk of losing?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The inestimable value of Padua's Botanic Garden, listed by the United Nations Organisation for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) as a world heritage site, and the praiseworthy measures planned to conserve it have been acknowledged in the financial assistance granted by the Commission in 1993 as part of its action in support of European architectural heritage conservation pilot projects. In accordance with the rules governing this action, the contribution was allocated for a specific project and could not be extended.

In 1997, the Commission established a specific programme in support of transnational cooperation projects to protect and enhance the cultural heritage, the Raphael programme. A new project to protect and enhance the value of this garden could be taken into consideration by the Commission, provided it meets the formal criteria set out in the calls for proposals published in the Official Journal each year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3436/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Update regarding the URBAN initiative in Rome

With reference to an earlier question concerning management of the URBAN initiative in Rome (E-2221/97)(1), could the Commission say whether or not the delays reported and confirmed by the Commission in connection with the implementation of the URBAN initiative in Rome have been made up? If they have not, what action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the scheduled timetable for implementation is met, taking additionally into account the lack of involvement which continues to prompt complaints from the local people concerned?

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

(25 January 1999)

Based on the information available, the implementation of subprogramme 3 of the Urban Community Initiative in Rome has made some progress as compared to 1997. Despite this, however, commitments and payments are still low compared to the average for the Urban Community Initiative for Italy, preventing the accumulated delays during the launch from being made up as yet.

To ensure that the funds allocated to Italy under the Initiative are fully used, the Commission will continue to monitor closely the programme's implementation and if necessary will propose, in co-operation with the administrations concerned, that funding be switched between subprogrammes, an option already provided for in the rules of procedure of the Monitoring Committee concerned.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 46.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2543/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment on a telephony station

With reference to my previous question "Non-ionizing radiation in the communes of Orte and Gallese" (E-2073/98) concerning the building of a cellular telephony satellite station with a radiation frequency of 5 Ghz, I should like to state that this station has not been subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC(1). Can the Commission therefore give its opinion on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Cellular telephone satellite stations are not included in the list of the projects of Annex I or II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2).

Consequently, if the telephone satellite station mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been submitted to any environmental impact assessment, that cannot be considered as a breach of Community environmental legislation.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(11 December 1998)

Subject: The fight against trafficking in illegal immigrants; eastward enlargement

The fight against trafficking in illegal immigrants has been identified as a major interest of the Union in view of the forthcoming enlargement. However, according to my information in some of the candidate countries the trafficking in foreigners is not yet even a criminal offence.

Can the Council conform this fact in the light of the information at its disposal?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

1. On 24 February 1997 the Council adopted, on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, a Joint Action concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children (OJ L 63, 4.3.1997). This Joint Action requires Member States to take specific action at national level to make trafficking a punishable offence under national law. It also establishes forms of judicial cooperation in the investigations and judicial processes relating to trafficking.

2. The relevant provisions are part of the acquis of the European Union, which the candidate countries will be called upon to accept in full upon accession. The candidate countries' preparation to introduce the elements of the acquis is currently part of the enhanced pre-accession strategy. The areas of Justice and Home Affairs in particular are included among the priorities of each accession partnership adopted for the Central and East European countries. Furthermore the situation in each applicant country is examined in the context of the screening process, as well as in the framework of the mechanism for collective evaluation of the enactment, application and effective implementation by the applicant countries of the acquis of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, set up under the Joint Action of 29 June 1998 (OJ L 191 of 7 July 1998, p. 8).

3. The Council has collected information on this subject in the context of the exchange of information at expert level between Member States and the Central and East European countries and Cyprus. From that information it appears that the smuggling in or out of aliens is a punishable offence in each of these candidate countries with penalties including terms of imprisonment, fines and confiscation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1263/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Protection of the rights of animals under the Swiss civil code

According to reports in leading Italian newspapers, dogs and cats in Switzerland will soon enjoy rights similar to those of human beings.

Attitudes to such animals are quite different in the rest of Europe, where they are subjected to all forms of ill treatment and do not receive the slightest protection, are often used for cruel fights (e.g. the scourge of dog fights) and experimentation and where vivisection is still practised.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that firm rules are laid down in Community Member States as soon as possible in respect of domestic animals, such as the establishment of centres for stray animals?

Will the Commission also consider the idea of proposing to Member States that a relevant clause be added to the civil code, as is happening in Switzerland?

Given that animals have no legal capacity, it could be decided that specific rules should govern the maintenance or assignment of animals in the event of death or dissolution of the family.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission is not currently aware of any modifications to the law of Switzerland along the lines referred to by the Honourable Member.

In formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, Member States and the Community are required to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.

This principle is included in a protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Commission does not, however, think that it is legally possible to confer rights on the animals themselves, therefore it prefers not to use the expression "animal rights".
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Central dairy in Rome: update

In relation to the previous questions on the Centrale del Latte di Roma, E-3408/97(1), E-0547/98(2) and E-1511/98(3) and with reference to the last reply given by Mr Fischler on 10 June 1511/98, the Commission indicated that it had initiated the procedure mentioned in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty to determine the existence, and the compatibility with the Treaty, of aid that was apparently granted to the Centrale del Latte di Roma as part of the privatisation procedure.

Can the Commission say what the outcome of this procedure was?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1998)

The Commission is currently examining the comments received as part of the procedure opened under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. When it has finished its examination it will take a final decision on the aid in question, in accordance with that procedure.

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 103.

(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 84.

(3) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 39.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3737/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales

In anticipation of a review of the entire European tax system, the 1992 directives decreed that duty-free sales in the European Union would come to an end in June 1999. The decision in favour of abolishing duty-free sales, which was taken by the Ministers of Finance, can be changed only by a symbolic use of unanimity, which it is difficult to achieve in this area.

In view of the fact that the sector employs 140 000 people, and that the profits made on such sales enable all of Europe's biggest airports to absorb a range of costs and finance works and investment, and in view of the by now spasmodic quest for job creation:

Can the Council indicate the logic behind the decision to abolish a sector which makes such a positive contribution to Community employment?

Does it intend to call a halt, as a matter of urgency, to the procedures for abolishing the sector, and initiate a study to examine the results of such abolition and its impact on industrial production and employment?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

With regard to the decision of 1991 on the tax-free sales for intra-community travellers, the Vienna European Council asked the Commission and the Council (ECOFIN) to examine by March 1999 the problems which could arise with regard to employment and to address on the basis of proposals from the Commission possible means of tackling these problems, including the possibility of a limited extension of the transitional arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3456/98

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Subject: Protection for whales to the south of the Canary Islands

Recent scientific studies have shown that the warm waters to the south of some of the Canary Islands have become an important area for cetaceans. A total of 27 different species have been identified, 12 of which are resident in these waters. Some, such as the bottle-nose dolphin, are threatened with extinction, whilst others such as the pilot whale are exposed to a wide range of hazards.

The Life Community project provides some funds for the protection of the bottle-nose dolphin and loggerhead turtle, which is also an endangered species. Nevertheless, cetaceans in this area are still seriously threatened by a large number of factors: over-exploitation of resources linked to tourism, changes in the coastal ecosystem of the islands, uncontrolled discharges of waste water in some cases, and uncontrolled visits by boats, whilst reliable sources have complained at the passive and notoriously neglectful attitude of the competent authorities.

Does the Commission have any information on this matter, and if the above reports are accurate, what measures is it taking or will it take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-1490/97 by Mrs Sierra Gonzále(1) and E-1128/97 by Mrs Diéz de Rivera Icaza(2).

The Commission is co-funding a LIFE project aimed at conserving loggerhead turtles and bottle-nose dolphins in the Canaries. One of this project's objectives is to implement the management plans for three sites (inhabited by the species the Honourable Member refers to) which have been designated by Spain under Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992(3) (on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The same project also involves an evaulation of the impact from touristic activity (mentioned in the question) on the south coast of Tenerife.

The Commission will make the necessary contacts to obtain full information on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(2) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.