ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2195/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: European subsidy for Niederrhein airport

The German Land of North Rhine-Westphalia has subsidised to the tune of DM 850 000 the conversion of the military airbase at Laarbruch into a civilian airport (Niederrhein airport).

1. Will the European Union also be providing financial support, and if so, how much?

2. Is the Commission aware that there is a great deal of opposition on the Dutch side of the border to the conversion of Laarbruch into a civilian airport?

3. What opportunities are there for Netherlands nationals to have a say in the matter?

4. Is the Commission aware whether an environmental impact assessment is being carried out, and if so, what procedure is to be followed?

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

(30 September 1998)

1. Military use of the airfield will cease by the end of 1999. The rural area around Weeze will face a loss of up to 2000 direct and indirect jobs. As early as 1994 the region (Kreis Kleve and the commune of Weeze) founded a development agency to tackle questions of civil re-use of the military air base, which has an area of 600 hectares. Within the Konver programme some 1,4 million DM have been made available for analyses of residual soil pollutants and for feasibility studies. The third phase of feasibility studies has now been launched, and includes further study of use of the base for civil purposes as a Euroregional Centre for air traffic, logistics and business, as well as the preparation of conversion measures.

2. The Commission is not aware of opposition on the Dutch side of the border. It has been informed that Dutch partners such as ELC (European Logistics Centre Venlo) and Vereniging 5 MDN (Five Mode Distri network Arnhem - Nijmegen) are involved in the development agency (Flughafen Niederrhein GmbH).

3. It is the intention of the region and the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen to carry out the conversion of the base for civil and economic purposes jointly with the Dutch border region and investors there.

4. However, current ideas for the use of the airfield for civil purposes are only one option. The final choice of a solution for the period from the year 2000 depends on market prospects. Issues such as environmental impact assessments are therefore not yet on the agenda.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Pig meat sector

Can the Commission state what amount of money was paid in compensation for losses to European pig farmers resulting from swine fever and does it consider such payments have resulted in increased production which has led to the market collapse for pig meat product?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1998)

From the outbreak of the epidemic of classical swine fever in early 1997 until September 1998 a total sum of ECU 1 297 million has been paid to European pig farmers as compensation for veterinary killings and as market support measures. The cost of veterinary killings was ECU 470 million of which Member States have paid 50 %, and the cost of the exceptional market support measures so far has been ECU 827 million of which the share of the Member States is 30 %. Therefore the total cost for the Community until September 1998 has been ECU 814 million.

The statistics showing a high production increase in 1998 may give a misleading picture, since the actual production increased considerably already in 1997. This is not seen in production statistics, because a large number of pigs were removed from the market in 1997 due to classical swine fever.

The removal of pigs from the market in swine fever areas had to be done in order to eradicate the disease and to avoid serious disturbance of the market. This may have encouraged farmers in other areas to increase their production further, since the demand for pigmeat was good. Every investment on a farm is naturally an individual decision by the farmer.

It can not be concluded that compensation for the losses of some farmers has increased the production of pigmeat in Europe. It should also be born in mind that the pig census data shows a long-term expansion in European pig herds. The expansion of pig herds during last 10 years has been most rapid in Ireland (+79 %), France (+30 %), Denmark (+27 %) and in Belgium (+26 %). There are also other reasons for the present poor market price. The economical turmoil in Far East and Russia has created difficulties for European exports, as has the increased competition from USA and Canada.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Fisheries

In the light of the repeated use of drift nets by vessels from various EU Member States in bonito fishing grounds in the Bay of Biscay in both the present and previous fishing years, does the Commission envisage imposing penalties of any kind on the culprits in question, given the serious harm caused to the fisheries sector in Spain as a whole, and in the Basque country in particular?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

Driftnet fishing for tuna will be prohibited only from 1 January 2001. In line with Council decisions on the subject, driftnets are authorised and the restrictions for 1998 and earlier years have mainly concerned their permitted lengths. The Commission has worked hard to ensure that these provisions are complied with and it has sent a report of its observations each year to Parliament. In these reports, the Commission has noted that the rules limiting the authorised maximum length to 2.5 km have been satisfactorily implemented since 1995, and no infringements have been detected. There can therefore be no question of imposing penalties. In any case, it is the duty of Member States to penalise infringements.

The Commission for its part will continue to monitor compliance with the rules on the use of driftnets and will similarly ensure compliance with the ban on their use when the time comes; if any infringements are detected, it will be analysing the action taken by Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: "Improved stove" programmes

What is the Commission's policy on the provision to refugee camps of fuels for the purpose of cooking and heating? Does it advocate the provision of the "improved stove", and has it taken on board recent evaluations which call into question the efficiency of the "improved stove" compared with the traditional three-stone fire?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3968/98 and E-3969/98 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 1999)

The relationship between refugees, biomass energy and improved stoves is a complex one. The Commission is seeking solutions for these issues from several directions and has a multiple approach on biomass energy issues: both the use and the production of biomass energy are addressed.

Within the framework of operations undertaken by the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO), in particular with regard to refugee camps, the Commission essentially intervenes through the funding of programmes implemented by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR).

Fuelwood and environment protection is a very important aspect in deploying assistance to refugees. In the arid regions of Africa and in West Tanzania the great concentration of refugees adds pressure on the environment. This issue is analysed with the UNHCR, on a case-to-case basis, from the programming phase of aid up to the evaluation phase of potential sites for accommodating new refugees.

The Community is addressing the biomass energy issues also from a broader policy angle. There are two projects facilitating policy formulation and implementation: (i) Sustainable forest management programmes in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and (ii) Regional biomass energy conservation programme for Southern Africa. A document on improved and traditional stoves in Africa, Asia and Latin America - Stove Images(1) has been finalised and broadly disseminated for information exchange purposes.

(1) ISBN 3-86099-136-1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/98

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Infringement of Community law by Greek legislation concerning the labelling of foodstuffs

Greek Law No 2538/97 contains a number of provisions regarding certain food products (dairy products, olive oil, packaged fruit juices, honey and packaged meat products) regarding compulsory labelling, creating a major burden for the food production and marketing sectors and generating a disproportionate volume of bureaucracy. At the same time, it is hampering intra-Community trade. The law in question also provides for monitoring procedures, administrative penalties and fines, together with criminal sanctions for infringement of its provisions.

In reply to my question (P-2344/98, of 5 August 1998)(1) the Commission indicated that these various labelling obligations could, at first sight, be regarded as an infringement of Directive 79/112/EEC(2) and undertook the consider the matter and, if appropriate, initiate infringement proceedings under Article 169.

1. What conclusion did the Commission reach concerning the infringement of Directive 79/112/EEC by the relevant law which requires:

(a) indication of the percentage of ingredients used in foodstuffs,

(b) indication on the labelling of the products in question their country of origin and the country of origin of the ingredients used,

(c) indication on the labelling of the products of the name and address of the producer, the processor or, in the case of non-Greek products, the distributor in Greece?

2. What position was adopted by the Greek Government in response to the Commission's communication?

3. What steps will the Commission take if the law is found to infringe Community rules in order to ensure the efficient production and marketing of food products in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-4039/98(3).

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 157.

(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(3) See page 118.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3796/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Payments for projects undertaken as part of the TACIS programme

Can the Commission reassure me that their system for making payments in relation to TACIS projects is not in breach of the Late Payments Directive?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3500/98 and E-3796/98 given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

The Commission established internal rules for payment deadlines in 1997, ahead of the introduction of the proposed late payments directive(1), confirming the payments should be made within 60 days of receipt of the payment request. This period can be suspended if, for example, the payment request is not adequately supported by justifying documents or if further checks are needed.

In the case of TACIS as well as of PHARE, the deadline has been exceeded in a number of cases with the result that, in the first ten months of 1998, the average period for making these payments was 73,6 days. This average covers beneficiaries across the board independent of the quality of the files presented.

The Commission has received representations about payment delays in respect of TACIS from a number of organisations and individuals, principally United Kingdom-based consultants. The Commission would also refer the Honourable Members to its reply to Written Question E-3236/98 by Mr Mather(2).

The Commission does not collate statistics of outstanding invoices by the country of origin of the contractor. To do so would reduce resources available to the verification and processing of these payment claims.

As to the future, the newly created Joint relex service is putting resources into place to reduce payment delays as quickly as possible and there has already been marked progress. Moreover the Commission is reviewing the financial structure of the contracts with a view to strengthening the verification and simplifying and harmonising the procedures.

(1) COM(98) 615 final.

(2) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999, p. 53.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3714/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Council

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Auditing of the ESCB

Article 27 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank provides that "the accounts of the ECB and national central banks shall be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council and approved by the Council".

Does the Council believe that the involvement of the Court of Auditors as an additional auditor would pose a threat to the independence of the ESCB?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Health problems affecting trade in bovine animals and swine

I refer to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (COM(98) 0081 final - 98/0052 COD)(1). Whilst supporting the Commission's proposal to introduce a computerised system, I would point out that the database is not yet operative.

There is no doubt that this will not help to restore consumer credibility and confidence.

Can the Commission therefore submit a report on the progress made in the implementation of that system throughout the Community?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products(2) states that "computerised databases shall become fully operational no later than 31 December 1999, after which they shall store all data required pursuant... to Directive 64/432/EEC". Member States are at present providing themselves with the means of meeting this obligation and the situation therefore varies widely. Given the difficulties encountered by some, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern and intends to draw their attention again to the importance of respecting the set date.

As it falls to the Commission under Article 6(3) first indent of Regulation (EC) 820/97 to judge whether each database is fully operational, it submitted to the Council and Parliament the proposal mentioned by the Honourable Member. Work on it is not yet complete within the Council. In the meantime a questionnaire has been sent to all Member States and following receipt of the first replies the first Commission decisions recognising databases should be issued in the first half of 1999.

(1) OJ C 100, 2.4.1998, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3798/98

by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Outright rejection of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment

Would the Commission say whether or not it is following the heated arguments which are raging throughout Europe (and also in Canada and the USA) with regard to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which is due to be signed by the EU Member States in the very near future.

The purpose of the MAI is to liberalise and protect international investment but in practice it is presented as (and indeed is) a manifesto for a new form of capitalism - the fiercest and most unrestrained type of free capitalism since it bestows full rights on financiers and multinationals and deprives governments of all sovereignty and ability to act. We need only consider that the section which is explicitly entitled "Rights of Investors" proclaims the freedom to invest funds and to acquire natural resources, mines, telecommunications services and even "cultural structures" without any hindrance or restriction, whilst all that governments are required to do is to ensure that the full benefits of investment can be enjoyed.

In view of the above, will the Commission not express immediate and vehement opposition to the "Treaty", which has been adopted by the OCSE in great secrecy and which has only recently come to light as a result of the efforts by a number of journalists, and condemn it for what it is: the violation of every government and social right in the name of the "religion" of profit and the free market?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 1999)

On 20 October 1998, the responsible member of the Commission, made a statement in Plenary on the issue to which the Honourable Member refers. This statement remains an accurate statement of the Commission's position on the negotiations on a Multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) in the framework of the Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD). In the meantime negotiations on the MAI are no longer taking place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Refuse collection in Rome

Over the last few months there have been a number of disputes with the Rome city authorities and with AMA (the company responsible for collecting the city's refuse) concerning the arrangements for refuse collections, which prevent the bins intended for the collection of solid waste and those designed to facilitate selective collection from being used easily.

In view of the above, could the Commission say:

1. What collection arrangements are currently in operation in the other EU Member States?

2. Whether it considers such a state of affairs to be contrary to EU directives on the collection and recycling of waste?

3. What its general view of the matter is?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

1. There are no specific directives on waste collection and there are a variety of schemes for the collection of waste in Member States. It is not possible to give a comprehensive answer to the question of the Honourable Member because many factors have to be taken into account, including climate, eating habits, and local conditions. Usually, there are also differences among regions in a given Member State in order to adapt to local circumstances.

2. Directive 75/442/EEC on waste(1) as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC(2) stipulates in Article 4 that waste has to be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and the environment. Details about the organisation of waste collection and disposal are left to Member States which have wide discretion in this area. Generally, differences of opinion between a local authority and a company entrusted with the task of collection and disposal of municipal waste, do not affect Community environmental legislation in the waste area.

3. The information provided does not allow the Commission to give an opinion on the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Denied-boarding compensation system

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (COM(98) 0041 final - 98/022 SYN)(1), can the Commission submit every three years a report on the implementation of the regulation based on reports drawn up by the Member States, ensuring in addition that a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulation is carried out by consulting interested parties before the regulation is reviewed and at the same time making a comparative analysis of the applicable rules governing compensation for all types of denied boarding in the United States and the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The Commission agrees that statistical reports on cases of denied-boarding compensation are important in order to have reliable information on the problems experienced by passengers.

In its amended proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) 295/91 providing for common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in air transport(2), the Commission therefore agreed to the suggestions previously made by the Parliament on this point.

The Commission also agrees that cost/benefit assessments, as well consultations with interested parties and comparison with similar legislation in other countries are important for the evaluation of the need for any amending legislation in the future. The Commission will collect such information whenever appropriate.

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18.

(2) OJ C 351, 18.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3446/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Cabin crews/civil aviation

With reference to the proposal for a Council directive on safety requirements and attestation of professional competence for cabin crews in civil aviation (COM(97) 382 final - 97/0212 SYN)(1), will the Commission set the minimum age for persons who perform an executive or managerial role in the field of air transport at 21 years (Article 4(1)), as is the case in other sectors concerned with the carriage of persons? Cabin crew members with more demanding tasks who are called upon to assume a significant degree of responsibility, particularly in emergency situations, should have acquired reasonable experience of life and also practical knowledge in cabin service.

(1) OJ C 263, 29.8.1997, p. 5.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3420/98 and E-3446/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

The Commission proposal for a Directive on Safety Requirements and Attestation of Professional Competence for Cabin Crews in civil aviation indeed would only apply to all crew members who perform duties in the passenger compartment of an aircraft with the sole exception of additional on-board staff who are employed solely for non safety duties such as to undertake commercial activities.

The extension of the provisions of this proposal to staff assigned solely to non-safety duties will continue to be a decision that can only be made by national aviation authorities or the airline operators.

The proposal lays down a minimum age of 18 years for this category of personnel and the Commission considers that it is unnecessary to set down further prescriptions of their career structure which should be left to the industrial partners or the commercial practices of the operators. Further prescription would, in the Commission's opinion, be an unnecessary restriction on the labour market.