ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3391/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Cedefop

In his answer of 19.10.1998 to my Question E-2549/98(1) Commissioner Liikanen stated that, as far as Cedefop personnel policy was concerned, "the Commission exercises controls only insofar as it is represented on the governing board of the Centre." To this he added the interesting rider that "in the sphere of personnel management, relations between the Commission and (outside) bodies are more informal". Despite this the Commission promotes funding requests by the decentralised bodies (including Cedefop, of course) before the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets and argues in favour of supporting them. It is therefore curious that the highly sensitive "function" (as Commissioner Liikanen himself states in his answer) of appointing personnel "has been delegated to the Director of the Centre for all categories and grades of staff", as the Commissioner adds. The delegation of wholesale responsibility in this area to the Director of the Centre is incompatible with Mr Liikanen's admission that Cedefop has not brought its practices into line with those of the institutions of the Union as regards the implementation of the "Staff Regulations of officials of the EC and the conditions of employment of other servants": for this reason advice is being given to the above Centre to help it come into line. The whole matter is highly sensitive and has been repeatedly discussed in the Greek press. One thing is certain: the recruitment practices of the Centre show no sign of coming into line with those of the other Community institutions.

Will the Commission say whether it has considered the full ramifications of the problem of Cedefop recruitment, what conclusions it has reached concerning the allegations made by the press about machinations involving recruitment, and how it intends to react to ensure that transparent and unimpeachable staff recruitment procedures are adopted at the Centre, which will serve to protect both the Centre itself and the reputation of Thessaloniki, the host City?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answer to Written Question E-2549/98(2) asked by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.

(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Grant aid for the pig meat industry in Northern Ireland

Can the Commission state the amount of grant aid paid for the marketing and processing of pig meat in Northern Ireland over the last 15 years and the breakdown between the EU and UK contributions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

Investment aid awarded to the pigmeat sector in Northern Ireland

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3879/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: "World Vision Austria" and misappropriation of funds

It recently emerged in Austria that a large amount of funds - Sch. 15 million - destined for the "World Vision Austria" aid organisation had been misappropriated.

Since an Austrian Member of the European Parliament and EU project funds are involved, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What official contacts and links exist between the aid organisation "World Vision Austria" and the European Union?

2. Are any aid projects being carried out by "World Vision Austria" on behalf of, or in cooperation with, the European Union, and if so which projects?

3. What are the objectives and who are the recipients of the aid?

4. How much money was allocated to the aid projects?

5. Does the Commission know whether the aid reached its destination and the objective of the aid measures was attained?

6. Was any pressure applied to entrust an EU aid project for Bosnia to the aid organisation "World Vision", and if so by whom?

7. Which Austrian NGOs does the Commission work with in carrying out aid projects?

8. What is the level of EU funds thus allocated to people in need?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

The Commission has taken the matter referred to by the Honourable Member in hand. At present it does not have sufficient information to confirm or refute the allegations.

Between 1996 and 1998, the Commission concluded three humanitarian aid contracts with World Vision Austria accounting for a total of ECU 1 022 000, all for emergency rehabilitation projects in former Yugoslavia, enabling minority groups to return to the canton of Zenica-Doboj. The projects benefited some 228 families whose homes were rehabilitated and 150 pupils of the primary school in Cobe. All three were completed satisfactorily.

The other Austrian non-governmental organisations with which the Commission works in the field of humanitarian aid are the Austrian Help Program, Care Osterreich, Caritas Austria, Osterreichisches Hilfswerk International, the Austrian Red Cross and SOS Kinderdorf.

The budget allocated by the budgetary authority to humanitarian aid under Chapter B7-21 for 1998, including additions, is ECU 475 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4107/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Infringement of the Treaty on European Union - UK participation in attack on Iraq

The participation of the UK in military operations against Iraq is an infringement of Article J.1(1) and (2), Article J.2(1) and Article J.8 of the Treaty on European Union since there was no information or consultation before the operations took place. Can the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, confirm or deny this assertion? Should it be confirmed, what measures does the Commission propose to take?

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

(24 February 1999)

The Commission regards this mainly as a matter for the Council, under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).

The Commission is fully involved in the CFSP, and would refer you to the Union's statement on Iraq, published on 9 November 1998, and to the statement by the Foreign Minister of Austria, which held the presidency of the Council at the time, made on 21 December 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/98

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Treatment of citizens during border controls

What measures is the Union taking to ensure that citizens have access to information in their own language whilst being questioned by Member States' police officers when identity checks and other border controls are being carried out?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3766/98, E-3767/98 and E-3768/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

With regard to ethnic minorities, and in particular the risk of racially-motivated checks, it should be pointed out that the European Council in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998 particularly underlined the need to combat all manifestations of racism, both within and outside the Union. The European Council asked the Commission to draft proposals for its next meeting in Cologne for measures to counter racism in the applicant countries and also invited the Member States to consider taking similar measures inside the Union. In this context, the Commission will consider possible measures, particularly in the area of staff training, aimed at preventing racist incidents during border checks.

Finally, the Commission acknowledges the fact that problems can arise during border checks where the officials responsible for checks or citizens exercising their right to free movement lack knowledge of foreign languages. However, the Commission has not been informed of any significant practical problems in this regard. For the time being, therefore, it does not intend to take any initiatives in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3091/98

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights

On 6 June 1996 the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights was adopted in Barcelona during the World Conference on Linguistic Rights, on the initiative of International PEN's Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee and Ciemen (Escarré International Centre for the Ethnic Minorities and Nations) and with moral and technical support from Unesco.

The prime objective of that declaration, which was produced thanks to the work of various NGOs and experts on linguistic issues and has received the support of many international figures in a range of fields, is to promote respect for and the full development of all languages and to preserve world linguistic diversity. In this light, will the Commission support the declaration with the aim of guaranteeing the right of each community to conserve and promote its language?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission is taking action to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages and cultures, which is being funded under budget heading B3-1006. The objective of this action is to promote and safeguard linguistic diversity in Europe. Projects relating to languages are therefore eligible for funding under this action, provided they comply with the objectives and criteria set out in the calls for proposals. The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-963/98 from Mr Imaz San Miguel(1) and E-2139/98 from Mr Frischenschlager(2).

However, it must be emphasised that the recognition of linguistic rights within the Member States is not the responsibility of the Commission.

(1) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.

(2) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 130.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Unlawful state aid to pig farmers

Under EU rules on state aid, all aid granted in respect of products is unlawful. The Commission should therefore intervene to stop the financial aid recently given by the French Government to pig farmers in France.

Pig farmers have been given FF 150 million on top of the FF 100 million they were allocated by the French Government in September. They have also been allowed to use credit facilities provided by the Stabiporc fund, which has been allocated FF 420 million. French pig farmers have thus received financial aid totalling FF 670 million.

The Commission should therefore intervene immediately and declare the aid unlawful. To start with, Stabiporc was declared unlawful by the European Court of Justice in the early 1990s. Secondly, the French Government has still not been able to explain how the FF 100 million allocated to pig farmers in September is lawful.

Will the Commission ensure that French pig farmers lose their unlawful competitive advantages?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission decided on 9 December 1998 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of aid which the French authorities are planning to grant to pig producers. The aid scheme has three components.

The French authorities intend to reactivate the Stabiporc system of repayable advances. Provided the advances (loans) are granted at market rates and comply with the Commission's reference rates, the measures do not appear to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.

The other two measures involve the deferral of social security contributions and the taking over of recent investors' loans. Since the sector concerned is the subject of trade and strong competition within the Community, these measures may affect trade between Member States and risk distorting competition by favouring French producers. They do not appear, at this stage, to meet the Commission's criteria for qualifying for the exemptions provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty. They seem, therefore, at present to be operating aid which is not compatible with the common market.

If the doubts about the aid's compatibility with the common market should turn out to be well founded, the Commission may have to take a final negative decision in order to restore the competitive status quo.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: EU-Asia relations

In its communication on EU-Asia strategy of 1994, the Commission oriented its approach towards the ASEAN countries largely on the basis of the purchasing power of those countries. In view of the Asian economic crisis, does the Commission agree that it should take a new look at this approach, given that South Asia has not been hit so badly by the economic crisis and in population terms is of growing importance to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 1999)

"Towards a New Asia Strategy"(1), the Commission's strategy paper published in July 1994, indicated the changes faced by relations between the Community and the Association of South East Asian nations (ASEAN) and called for the building of a partnership of equals with ASEAN.

On this basis the Commission produced, in July 1996, a communication "for a New Dynamic" in relations(2) between the Community and ASEAN. This communication can be described as an attempt to give a new boost to relations in the absence of any progress towards a new Community-ASEAN agreement. The Commission insisted on the growing political and economic importance of South East Asia and the need to embark on a new process which would create a more active partnership.

On 24 April 1997, the Council adopted a "package for future action" with ASEAN which the Commission was charged to negotiate with the ASEAN side. On the basis of this package the Commission has prepared a work programme. This work programme has been updated since the unfolding of the economic crisis in Asia, in order to take into account the new economic situation in the ASEAN countries. Special emphasis has been put on actions responding to the crisis.

The work programme will be discussed and adopted at the next Community-ASEAN joint co-operation committee.

As regards South Asia, the Commission has tried to reinforce relations in this part of the world. It adopted a communication on "EU-India Enhanced Partnership" in June 1996, and is in the process of concluding new agreements with Bangladesh and Pakistan. Despite certain setbacks following developments in the security field, economic relations continue to grow, with both a broadening and deepening of the partnership. The Commission is firmly of the opinion that South Asia has an important and increasing role in the world both economically and politically.

(1) COM(94) 314 final.

(2) COM(96) 314 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Hemp-growing in Finland

According to some newspaper reports, EU-subsidised hemp-growing trials have been conducted in Finland, with satisfactory results. However, it has now emerged that in certain cases it has not proved possible to market the hemp grown: instead, it has been left piled up at the edge of the fields - yet despite this, EU subsidies have been paid for its cultivation.

Payment of such agricultural subsidies cannot be a rational use of EU funds levied from the taxpayer. The EU ought either to subsidise marketing as well, which would make sense from the point of view of agricultural policy, or to make the payment of subsidies conditional on success in marketing the hemp which is grown.

How will the Commission solve this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

Council Regulation (EEC) 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp(1) introduced aid per hectare for hemp grown in the Community. This aid is granted only if the hemp is produced using seed of varieties whose content in intoxicating substances (tetrahydrocannabinol) does not exceed 0,3 %. This limit will be reduced to 0,2 % from the 2001/02 marketing year.

Moreover, the aid can be paid only for those areas which have been fully sown and harvested and on which normal cultivation work has been carried out.

With particular regard to Finland, the area under hemp, which was 2 hectares in 1996 and 53 hectares in 1997, reached a considerable 1 286 hectares (provisional figure) in 1998.

There are no rules on the conditions under which the harvested hemp is to be stored. On the other hand, in accordance with the commitment given by the Commission as part of the 1997/98 prices package to put forward appropriate measures in the hemp sector, the Council has introduced, for application from the 1999/2000 marketing year, a system of obligatory contracts between growers and primary processors, a processing commitment and a system to approve the primary processors. The detailed rules of application are currently being prepared and should eliminate the cultivation of hemp for which there is no product market. These provisions will prevent the situations referred to by the Honourable Member and should ensure that greater efforts are made to optimise the product¢s commercial worth.

(1) OJ L 146, 4.7.1970.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Transport of radioactive material by air

Can the Commission list all the companies in the EU which are licensed to transport radioactive material by air?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3786/98 and E-3787/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

The transport of radioactive material is organised in accordance with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and implemented for air transport by the technical requirements adopted within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which are currently applied by all Member States. Such requirements apply equally to cargo and passenger flights. Any air carrier licensed for the carriage of freight is entitled to carry such material, provided it applies the related requirements (mainly through design and strength of packaging).

Since the Commission considers that the application of these requirements provides the necessary guarantees for the safe transport of such materials it has not made any proposals for Community legislation in this sphere.

This issue - like others relating to safety - is naturally subject to continual consideration. Responsible authorities would respond to any change in circumstances that altered the present levels of safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/98

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: VAT on works of art

Some countries, including Belgium, have been applying the Seventh VAT Directive since 1 January 1995. To raise the VAT rate, Germany, on the other hand, has been granted a deferment until 1999. The result is distorted competition among art dealers in the various Member States, since VAT in Belgium, for example, is 21 %, but only 7 % in Germany. This difference represents an enormous competitive advantage in a market as specialised and transnational as the art market.

Besides the competition aspect, there would also appear to be discrimination as regards the rate of VAT liability among the various segments of the market in cultural goods and services. Bookshops and, more recently, performing artists thus benefit from a reduced rate of 6 %. This reduction was introduced with the aim of stimulating cultural life and giving it a chance of surviving.

Is the Commission aware of the difficulties being encountered by art dealers, and does it envisage proposing the amendment of Directive 92/77/EEC supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the inclusion of works of art in Annex H to this directive (List of supplies of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT) to ensure fair competition among the European Union's art dealers as part of the Community policy of supporting the cultural sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 1999)

The 7th VAT Directive of 14 February 1994 (94/5/EC)(1) provides special arrangements applicable to second-hand goods, works of art, collectors' items and antiques. This allows taxpayers to account for VAT on their profit margin on the sales of works of art, which is the case in Belgium, rather than having to account for VAT on the full sale price, which is applied in Germany. Furthermore, Member States have the option to apply the reduced rate to imports of works of art, and when they do so, they then have the option of applying the reduced rate to first supplies of works of art effected by the creator or his successors in title, thus putting visual artists in the same situation as performing artists. However, the decision to apply the reduced rate either to first supplies by visual artists or services supplied by performing artists is a matter for each Member State.

The Commission is conscious of the distortions due to the derogations granted to two Member States at the time of adoption of the 7th VAT Directive, but is confident that these distortions will disappear with the expiration of these derogations on 30 June 1999.

(1) OJ L 60, 3.3.1994.