ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Cross-border cooperation on the treatment of urban waste

1. Which basic national and European legislation - similar to the technical regulations on air pollution control or the Federal pollution protection law in the Federal Republic of Germany - is the precondition for authorization of plants designed specifically for the thermal treatment and utilization of urban waste in neighbouring European countries?

2. Which plants for the treatment and utilization of urban waste in the EU are supported through EU funds and to what extent?

3. What legal requirements apply to urban waste from the FRG which is treated and utilized in plants in other EU Member States?

4. Does the Commission consider that a price of ECU 40 per tonne for heat treatment or utilization in a planned new plant in Esbjörg (Denmark) is realistic? If so, how can this price be justified and, in the Commission's view, how will such prices affect waste flows in the FRG?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

1. and 3. Under the European law currently in force urban-waste incinerators must, inter alia, meet the requirements set out in Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste, as currently amended by 89/369/EEC(2) and 89/429/EEC(3) on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants. Once Directive 96/61/EC(4) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control enters into force its requirements, too, will apply.

Under the structural funds' programme approach the Member States or regions approve, on their own responsibility, any individual projects cofinanced by the structural funds, such as waste incinerators or recycling plants. Compliance with Community legislation is obligatory. In its 7th annual report on the structural funds the Commission estimated that in the 1994-99 objective-1 programmes around ECU 225 million were allocated to waste collection and waste treatment. However, in this context the Commission has no systematic data on allocations of or amounts granted to any individual installations co-financed by structural funds.

2. In addition the management and treatment of urban waste count among the urgent forms of action in terms of cohesion-fund environmental co-financing. The estimated amounts involved in co-financing in this sector for 1993-97 total ECU 77 million for Spain, ECU 268 million for Portugal, ECU 46 million for Greece and ECU 12 for Ireland. The following projects are either still in progress or have recently been completed:

>TABLE>

4. It is not possible to produce any estimates concerning the planned new facility in Esjbjerg, more particularly because prices depend very heavily upon local factors.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.

(3) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.

(4) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Public information about cargo on passenger flights

It has come to my attention that radioactive material is sometimes transported as cargo on passenger flights.

1. Does not the Commission feel that the public is entitled to be informed as to which flights carry this type of cargo?

2. Why is such cargo not transported solely on cargo flights?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0285/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Admission of holders of the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification to the European civil service

The documentation attached to the action for annulment brought before the Court of First instance by Mr Vicente Alonso Morales on 1 December 1997 (T-299/97), brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that Mr Roberto Arce Recio, who holds the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification, had been admitted to study for a doctorate at Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse (France) and awarded a doctorate with distinction on 24 June 1998.

Why, then, did Commissioner Liikanen state in his answer of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97(1) that the reasons for which the Commission does not admit holders of the Spanish "Ingeniero Técnico" qualification to category A/LA posts in the European civil service include the fact that holders of the said qualification are not eligible to study for a doctorate?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2786/98 by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi(2)

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

(2) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0029/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(20 January 1999)

Subject: Human rights of householders without planning permission

There are some 800 000 buildings without planning permission in Greece, and over two million persons (including their families) occupy such buildings.

These illegal householders have received repeated assurances from the Greek authorities that the problem of legalizing their buildings will be settled and that they will be integrated in town planning schemes; however, nothing has so far been done. The laws and presidential decrees issued since 1977 (the most recent was Presidential Decree 267 of 1998) are concerned purely with raising revenue and impose swingeing fines on illegal householders, even though no progress has been made to connect their dwellings to the water supply, sewage and electricity systems, services which are provided as a matter of course in any other country. This situation represents a violation of even the most basic human rights and reduces one fifth of the inhabitants of Greece to the status of second-class citizens.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the plight of householders without planning permission in Greece and what measures it intends to take to provide relief for the two million and more Greeks who lack the most basic public utilities such as water, light and sewage disposal?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 1999)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0014/99

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 1999)

Subject: Miserable treatment of orphans in Russia and inhuman conditions in orphanages

According to a recent publication by Human Rights Watch there are more than 600 000 orphans in Russia, one third of whom end up in institutions and orphanages where conditions are harsh and inhuman, they are beaten and frequently victims of sexual abuse.

These appalling conditions mean that, at the very best, even normal children become mentally retarded. Where children rebel against this miserable treatment, they are categorised as "recidivists" and treated like dissidents in the former Soviet Union. According to the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office, of the 15 000 young people who leave orphanages each year 5 000 are unemployed, 6 000 have no fixed address, 3 000 resort to crime and 1 500 commit suicide!

Will the Commissions say what action it intends to take to ensure that the human rights of such children are protected and that conditions in Russian orphanages are made more humane?

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

(5 February 1999)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about protecting human rights in Russia and more specifically about the situation in orphanages. Human rights issues are regularly raised at top level with the Russian authorities in the context of the ongoing political dialogue between the Community and Russia. Through the ECHO programme, the Commission provided some 53 millions euro of humanitarian assistance in the 1994-1998 period, typically targeted at vulnerable groups including children living in orphanages and prisoners suffering from tuberculosis. However, a general problem, given the size of Russia, is the relative lack of reliable non governmental organisations (NGOs) to help identify needs and deliver such assistance and the often difficult official procedures and regulations. Nevertheless, the Commission will continue with its humanitarian assistance efforts. The Commission is also about to launch a sizeable food aid programme targeted at especially vulnerable regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0082/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Package Travel Directive

Will the Commission support calls for tougher safeguards to protect consumers against the collapse of package tour operators by bringing forward proposals to amend the Package Travel Directive, in order to give consumers additional information on the safeguarding of pre-payments, enable bookings to be transferred if their holiday is jeopardised and ensure that holidaymakers are brought home if the company goes bankrupt?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-4002/98 and E-0082/99 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

The wording of Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC, which obliges organisers and retailers of package holidays to "provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency" leaves a wide margin of interpretation.

In implementing this provision Member States have followed very different approaches. The Commission is closely following the implementation in all Member States. At present, infringement proceedings are pending against Italy, where the travel guarantee fund foreseen by law 111/95 has not yet been constituted, and against Greece, where maritime passenger transport companies are wholly exempted from the obligation to provide security for the case of their insolvency.

It must, however, be noted that the Commission can open infringement proceedings only in cases where shortcomings in the transposition and application of Article 7 of the Directive are obvious, e.g. where there is no implementation at all (as in Italy) or where the security to be provided by organisers and retailers is clearly insufficient. It is hardly possible to argue that a security system is insufficient, if there have been no shortcomings in practice.

In fact, the Commission has received no complaint from consumers or consumers' associations, either in the United Kingdom or in any other Member State, that concerned the insufficiency of national measures to implement Article 7. From this, it would appear that no grave problems have as yet occurred in practice.

Nevertheless, the Commission is still following the issue closely. Recent developments, especially the decisions of the Court of justice in the cases Dillenkofer (C-178/94), VKI vs Österreichische Kreditversicherung (C-364/96) and Ambry (C-410/96) give reason to believe that the measures chosen by some Member States to implement Article 7 are not in keeping with the Court's interpretation of that provision. The Commission will invite the Member States to discuss the issue early in 1999, and will then take further steps, if necessary.

As for Article 4(4) of Directive 90/314/EEC concerning the revision of published prices, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to state the reasons that lead her to believe that this provision is not implemented correctly in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0731/99

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

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Greece does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0717/99, E-0718/99, E-0719/99, E-0720/99, E-0721/99,E-0722/99, E-0723/99, E-0724/99, E-0725/99, E-0726/99, E-0727/99, E-0728/99,E-0729/99, E-0730/99 and E-0731/99 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission will decide on the list of regions eligible for Objective 1 in the period 2000-06 once the Council has adopted the general regulation governing the Structural Funds. The proposal presented by the Commission on 19 March 1998 states that the Objective 1 regions will be those at NUTS level II whose gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of the last three years available, is less than 75 % of the Community average. The data used for this purpose will relate to the years 1994, 1995 and 1996.

In addition, the Commission has proposed that the most remote regions and the areas qualifying for Objective 6 in the period 1995-99 should also be eligible for Objective 1.

The table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament lists the regions in each Member State which, based on the Commission proposal, will be eligible for Objective 1 in the period 2000-06. Any region not included in this table will not be eligible for this Objective.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/99

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: Transposition by Belgium of Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road

By Royal Decree of 21 October 1997, Belgium implemented Directive 93/89/EEC(1), laying down that the euro vignette would be required in Belgium, inter alia, for the N8 road from Courtrai to Coxyde via Ypres, a road which is classified as a secondary road in the Flanders Structural Plan.

Is it permitted under the Directive referred to above for a Member State to require a euro vignette for a road it regards as a secondary road?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Article 7.d third sub-paragraph of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, stipulates that after consultations with the Commission, in accordance with a specific procedure, Member States may impose user charges (i.e. the Eurovignette) also on users of other sections of the primary road network particularly where there are safety reasons for doing so.

Making use of this provision the Belgian government entered into consultations with the Commission regarding the extension of the road network, where the Eurovignette is levied, to include all N-roads ("routes nationales").

After examination of the Belgian request the Commission concluded in its opinion of 15 February 1996 that a large-scale extension of the Eurovignette network as proposed by the Belgian Government is not justified. However the Commission found reasonable the extension of the application of the Eurovignette on a limited number of N-roads (17) where a shift of heavy goods traffic could be expected if they remained outside the Eurovignette network. According to the Commission's opinion such a transfer of traffic onto these N-roads, combined with certain of their features, could lead to higher safety risks.

Therefore, to prevent such an occurrence and help maintain the road safety level throughout the Belgian territory the Commission agreed to the levying of the Eurovignette on these 17 N-roads (additionally to the motorways) which include the road N 8 Brussel-Ninove-Oudenaarde-Kortrijk-Ieper-Koksijde.

(1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 32.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0231/99

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Increase in tariffs on certain European exports to the United States

As a result of the disagreement between the United States and the European Union caused by differences of opinion over the banana trade, a series of European products have been subject to tariffs of 100 %.

Will the Commission say how it intends to tackle this latest crisis? What measures will it take to protect European exports to the United States' market?

In view of the export difficulties facing some of the sectors and products concerned, caused also by the crisis in Russia, what steps will the Commission take to prevent the unemployment likely to arise as a result of reduced production?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/99

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Request for aid in connection with forest fires

Spain recently submitted seven applications to the Commission for funding in the course of 1999 to prevent forest fires, the money to be provided under the regulation on the protection of Community forests against fire.

What are the basic details of the applications submitted? Which areas of Spain are affected?

Does any of the applications relate to the Canary Islands?

Has the Commission received any application for emergency funds to repair the damage caused by fires which have occurred in the Canary Islands during the years in which the regulation on the protection of Community forests against fire has been in force?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 1999)

Of the seven funding applications made by Spain under Regulation (EC) 308/97 of 17 February 1997 on protection of the Community's forests against fire three are for projects in the Basque Country (aid requested [fmxeuro]1 655 603), one is for a project in Catalonia (aid requested [fmxeuro]30 351) and three are for projects proposed by the Directorate-General for Nature Conservation (aid requested [fmxeuro]1 293 822).

The latter three projects are a national information campaign on forest fires, a national terrestrial and aerial monitoring scheme and a training course for personnel responsible for monitoring and initial intervention. The Catalan project is a study on protection of forests against fire and the Basque Country projects are a regional information and education campaign, creation of tracks, firebreaks and water supply points, and a regional monitoring scheme.

No application relating to the Canary Islands has been made.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 874/99 by James NICHOLSON RETEX II initiative - Northern Ireland



Official Journal C 370 , 21/12/1999 P. 0134



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/99 by James Nicholson (PPE) to the Commission (8 April 1999) Subject: RETEX II initiative - Northern Ireland How much funding has been granted in Northern Ireland under the RETEX II initiative in the current programming period?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0532/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it urged the Commission "to propose the initiatives needed to set up a Community-level reference laboratory to safeguard the quality of Community products and products originating from third countries freely marketed on Union territory, and their compliance with technical and health standards".

Can the Commission say what measures have been taken to comply with Parliament's request?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0166/99

by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Established rights of undertakings following the amendment of rules and the introduction of liberalisation measures

Does the Commission not believe that the legal principle put forward by some European electricity undertakings according to which the costs of the transition to competition in the electricity sector are established rights which must be recognised from the point of view of compensation, to be borne by consumers, represents a serious legal precedent for all the liberalised sectors given that the principle of equal treatment, inter alia, is enshrined in the Treaties?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0164/99, E-0165/99 and E-0166/99 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

It is correct that the Commission has prepared a discussion document titled "Indicative guidelines for transitional regimes - Article 24 of Directive 96/92/EC" which was discussed with the Member States at the meeting of the follow-up group on the implementation of the electricity Directive 96/92/EC on 13 May 1998. It was prepared by the Directorate general for energy (DGXVII) in close cooperation with the Directorate general for competition (DGIV) and the Legal service and did not commit the Commission with regard to any decisions according to Article 24 of the Directive or Article 92 of the EC Treaty. With this understanding, the document can be made available to the Members of the Parliament.

The approach of Article 24 of the Directive is to address "stranded costs" or "costs for the transition to competition", in the perspective of commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of the Directive, which may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive, by providing for derogations from Chapters IV, VI and VII of the Directive. However, Member States may choose not to apply derogations, that is, delaying market opening but to fully apply the Directive and to compensate electricity companies with transfer payments. The Commission considers that such measures, not representing derogations from the Directive but payments to electricity companies, these should also be examined according to the state aids rules.