ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
a-immunotherapies against leukemia. During the 5th framework programme (1999-2002) these two
projects will spend about 11 million €.
Moreover, in the second action plan of the Europe against cancer programme 1990-1994 (extended until
1995), grants were given to 29 projects for a total amount of 0,87 million € in the area of research andcancer. During the first two years of the third action plan of the Europe against cancer programme (1996-1997), grants were given to 24 projects for a total amount of 8,09 million € in the area of data collectionand research.
(2000/C 27 E/023) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/99
by Fernand Herman (PPE) to the Commission
(26 March 1999)
Subject: General incentive to grow crops for non-food purposes
The problem of markets for European agricultural products is becoming more and more acute and a
number of Member States are trying  not without difficulty  to launch policies that will not be toocostly for the European budget.
In this context non-food outlets, i.e. outlets for agricultural products for purposes other than human
consumption, offer a partial solution to the problem, but Agenda 2000 says nothing on this matter.
Could the Commission envisage, as requested by some Member States, granting a premium of Euro 90 to
100/hectare as a general incentive for non-food uses  as defined in the regulation on industrial set-aside, if necessary in a framework of agro-environmental measures?
Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(6 May 1999)
It is clear that the use of agricultural products for non-food purposes provides an excellent possibility for
diversifying outlets and preventing overproduction.
While the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) proposed by Agenda 2000 does not envisage a
non-food policy as such, the Agenda does contain proposals likely to lead to the adoption of measures infavour of renewable raw materials, both from the point of view of the operation of the market and fromthe point of view of structural policy.
Hence, Agenda 2000 adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the Berlin European Council of
24-25 March 1999 envisages a reference rate for compulsory set-aside of 10 % from the 2000/01marketing year to the 2006/07 marketing year inclusive.
Processing industries should therefore in the years to come be able to count on supplies of renewable raw
materials at reasonable prices and so take advantage of this period to improve market penetration for theirproducts and become more competitive.
The production of non-food products is, moreover, always possible under the voluntary set-aside
arrangements.
Also, the new regulation on rural development expressly encourages non-food production. Member States
will therefore have the possibility of actively contributing, by means of part-financing, to the promotion of
this sector under their regional development programmes.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/21 Official Journal of the European Communities
(2000/C 27 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1378/99
by Barbara Weiler (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: European Voluntary Service
The members of the European Voluntary Service suffer major disadvantages in some cases compared to
other, national voluntary services. They have, for example, no uniform legal status and forfeit theirentitlements to unemployment and child benefit.
1. Does the Commission intend to propose common rules so that the legal situation of European
volunteers may be improved?
2. How does the Commission rate the chances of the Member States defining a common status for the
European Voluntary Service that includes coordination of social protection and tax arrangements for thevolunteers?
3. How long is it likely to be before the Member States agree on a common status for European
volunteers?
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
(5 October 1999)
The Commission attaches great importance to the elimination of all legal and administrative barriers to
access to the European Voluntary Service Programme and to transnational mobility for young Europeanvolunteers and recognition of the particular nature of their situation.
However, the European voluntary service for young people programme is based on Article 149 (ex-Article
126) of the EC treaty pursuant to which the Community must encourage cooperation between MemberStates while fully respecting their responsibility in this area, and this rules out harmonisation of theexisting system.
The Community action has already had an impact on existing legislation in certain Member States but the
Commission considers that there is still room for improvement. This is why it plans, in the context offollowing up the Green Paper Education, training, research: the obstacles to transnational mobility (
1), to
propose a recommendation concerning notably young volunteers with a view to recognising the particularnature of transnational voluntary activities and to eliminating the legal and administrative barriers and thelegal uncertainty associated with the mobility of young volunteers.
As regards social protection for volunteer development workers, who are not part of the European
Voluntary Service Programme (
2), the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, adopted
Recommendation 85/308/EC (3) on 13 June 1985. On 31 March 1992 the Commission presented an
initial report on the application of this recommendation (4) and, very recently, on 2 July 1999, a new
report (5).
(1) COM(96) 462 final.
(2) COM(98) 201 final.
(3) COM(85) 260 final.
(4) SEC(92) 591 final.
(5) COM(99) 326 final.C 27 E/32 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Lack of transparency at Cedefop

Replying on 22 January 1999 to my question E-3391/98(1) on the operation of Cedefop, Commissioner Liikanen states that "he has nothing to add to his previous answer to Question E-2549/98"(2).

I have repeatedly drawn the Commission's attention to the unprecedented methods of recruitment used at the above Centre which are undermining its image and denigrating its host country (for no reason).

Allegations in the Greek newspapers and magazines are growing in number, applicants for posts advertised at Cedefop are protesting at the lack of transparency that prevails, but the Commission states that "it has nothing to add" to the answers it gives, so covering up the underlying intrigue.

When will the Commission decide to take a serious look at the recruitment of staff to Cedefop (and other decentralised EU agencies), the lack of transparency in which is an affront and further tarnishes its image?

Does the Commission not think it should intervene immediately and effectively to investigate the allegations of lack of transparency in these agencies in order to stop it being openly accused of complicity, which will inevitably result in more motions of censure against it, with serious charges against people who have political and professional responsibilities within the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answers to Written Questions E-2549/98 and 3391/98.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 63.

(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0643/99

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Cost of the EU driving licence

A charge is usually made for the issue of the new EU driving licence by the relevant authorities in the Member States.

1. Is it generally compulsory to exchange old driving licences for the new EU licence?

2. Does the Commission know how much is charged in each of the Member States for the issuing of the new EU licence?

3. How does the Commission explain the sometimes considerable differences in the amounts charged in the Member States for the issue of the new driving licence?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

1. Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 of July 1991 on driving licences(1) lays down detailed provisions regarding the issue of driving licences stipulating that:

"'Member States shall introduce a national driving licence based on the Community model described in Annex I, in accordance with the provisions of this Directive.'

'Driving licences issued by Member States shall be mutually recognised. '

'Where the holder of a valid national driving licence takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued the licence, the host Member State may apply to the holder of the licences its national rules on the period of validity of the licences, medical checks and tax arrangements and may enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration.'"

As of 1st July 1996, all Member States introduced a new driving licence model in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. However, the issuing of driving licences remains a national competence. Accordingly, the adoption of the new Community model does not imply that existing valid licences have to be renewed. That is for each Member State to decide individually. Clearly, the Directive indicates that all licences issued by a Member State should be mutually recognised, including those driving licences issued before 1st July 1996 and which are not in conformity with the Directive's provisions.

2. The cost for the issuing of a new Community licence is also a matter of national competence. In practice, every Member State charges a different amount for the issuing of a new driving licence, ranging from approximately 12,5[fmxeuro] to 84[fmxeuro].

3. The considerable differences in the amounts charged in the Member States for the issue of a new driving licence, reflect the different costs per Member State for the theoretical test, the practical test, the medical checks, the cost for administering this process and the subsequent issue of the document itself.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/99

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 Ireland 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/99

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 took the view that "the Union should develop a supply policy that meets the real needs of the Community processing industry as a whole, supporting the Community fleet and guaranteeing access to the raw material needed at any time in the best conditions that the world market can supply".

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-0621/99

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Airline slots

Is the Commission aware that the potential open commercial trading of slots at airports by airlines will lead to smaller regional services being squeezed out of major hub airports due to commercial pressure? Is this not contrary to the policies of regionalisation and transport access by air on a region to region basis?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 1999)

The Commission is in the process of preparing a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93 of 18 January 1993 in order to optimise the use of slots and giving particular consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a fair mechanism in order to facilitate slot movements. Various means of reinforcing the position of new entrants, including regional carriers, and making the existing Regulation more easily enforceable are also being considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Support for newspapers and periodicals in the EU

Many publications carry reports on the European institutions. It would be interesting to know to what extent European aid is given to this sector.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether financial support is provided for publications in the EU;

2. if so, which newspapers or periodicals receive support from the Commission;

3. what the budgetary allocation for these publications is?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

1. There is no system whereby the Commission subsidises the press or publishers, apart from a small programme to assist with translation costs of literary works in lesser used languages.

2. The Commission does however buy space in publications where necessary as, for example, to advertise open competitions. It also purchases quantities of certain publications for its own use. In the course of their information work certain Commission representations have provided assistance to journals for extra copies of issues or supplementary pages relating to European matters. Expenditure of these kinds would come from a number of different budget headings.

3. The choice of publications in which to purchase advertising space would be designed to maximise national coverage. They would not be chosen by virtue of the extent or nature of their treatment of Community matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/99

by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fishing agreement with Iceland

With regard to the 1 000 tons UK quota of red fish and the fact that no factory trawlers are allowed, are UK ships able to head and gut fish they catch?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Under the Community-Iceland fisheries agreement, the United Kingdom enjoys a quota of 1 160 tons of redfish (out of a total Community quota of 3 000 tons). The agreement provides for "the issuing of a limited number of fishing permits to trawlers, other than factory trawlers", thereby in effect prohibiting Community fishing vessels from heading and gutting the catch at sea or engaging in other processing activities in Icelandic waters. This processing prohibition and the underlying insistence on catches of fresh fish was one of Iceland's essential requirements at the time of the conclusion of the fisheries agreement in 1993. Since 1997 factory vessels which have either removed or sealed all equipment necessary for the operation as a factory vessel may also be granted a fishing permit. This has not, however, removed the general processing prohibition which also covers heading and gutting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Subject: Problem of computer compatibility in secondary education in Greece

By the end of 1996 1 187 of the 1 777 secondary schools in Greece had been equipped with computers for educational purposes. However, the vast majority of these computers, which have not been upgraded, are second and third-generation computers (286 and 386, respectively) and cannot therefore use Windows or modern telecommunications applications based on this particular programme.

Will the Commission say:

1. What information does it have about the existing infrastructure in secondary education in Greece as regards data-processing and the telecommunications potential of this infrastructure?

2. What is the period of implementation of the programme for the introduction of data-processing in secondary education (under the EPEAEK - Greek Operational Programme "Education and Initial Vocational Training"), and will it say in particular whether pupils' ability to use up-to-date telecommunications applications is compatible with the original objectives of the Operational Programme?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 1999)

The structural funds support the introduction and use of information technology in secondary education schools in Greece through the operational programme "Education and initial training". The operation is implemented progressively on the basis of an integrated plan, which includes actions referring to the purchase of hardware and standard software; the establishment of computer laboratories, mainly for the integrated lyceums; the development or adaptation of educational software; the training of teachers and students; and the link to Internet and/or other networks. The Greek authorities have defined the specifications of the system so as to allow for the use of modern telecommunications applications.

Despite the considerable resources allocated to the introduction of information technology into secondary schools, it will not be possible to equip all schools with computer facilities within the current programming period (1994-1999). The effort should continue in the next Community support framework.

For further details, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Greek ministry of Education.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/99

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 carry out a detailed analysis of Community tariff law affecting fish product preserves and aquaculture, with the aim of abolishing any advantages in access to the Community market that are no longer justified".

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken to comply with Parliament's request and what results have been obtained thus far?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/99

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Veterinary inspections

Will the Commission allow Member States to introduce veterinary inspections at their borders in order to prevent the spread of swine fever and other diseases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

The free movement of goods, including animals and animal products, is one of the fundamental objectives of the Community. Since the free internal market has been established the frontiers between Member States no longer represent the place where veterinary controls on animals and animal products are carried out.

In accordance with Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990, concerning veterinary and zoo-technical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), the controls necessary to verify if the animals and animal products satisfy the requirements of Community legislation in the veterinary field must be primarily carried out at the place of dispatch, under the responsibility of the Member State of dispatch. However, the Member State of destination may establish non-discriminatory veterinary spot checks at the place of destination. Under certain circumstances veterinary checks can also be carried out during transport or in other places such as markets or assembly centres.

In order to protect the Community from the risk of introducing animal diseases such as classical swine fever, when animals and animal products enter from a third country, veterinary controls must be carried out at the border inspection posts in each Member State, under the responsibility of the Member State itself.

The Commission has no intention to propose any change of Community legislation that may be in contrast with the principles governing the current system of veterinary controls in the Community.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Slovakia's participation in the fifth framework research programme

The Commission deems seven applicant countries (Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovenia) suitable to take part in the fifth framework programme for research and technological development.

Slovakia has not yet been mentioned, although known data on the country paint a positive picture of its economic performance and its participation therefore seems on the cards.

On what criteria did the Commission base its assessment?

Why has Slovakia not yet been included in the proposal and when will it be included?

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

(21 April 1999)

The Commission approved a proposal concerning Slovakia's application to take part in the fifth framework programme on 24 February. The reason why some countries were included earlier than others is that Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania sent the Commission their official letters of confirmation later than the other seven applicant countries mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Austrians in the Commission

People with whom I come into contact in my home Member State of Austria frequently ask me about the Austrian nationals employed at the EU institutions.

I should therefore be glad if you could answer the following questions:

1. How many Austrian nationals are employed at the Commission?

2. In which DGs are they employed (please provide a detailed list)?

3. How many of these Austrians are A, B, C or D grade officials respectively?

4. How many Swedes and Finns are employed at the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 1999)

1. The Commission currently employs 285 Austrian citizens as officials or temporary staff paid from the operational and shared-cost research budgets.

2. Their distribution by Directorate-General appears in the table which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

3. As the summary at the end of that table shows, there are 125 A, 57 B, 57 C and 8 D officials. There are also 16 LA officials.

4. For the purposes of comparison, the number of Finnish and Swedish officials, also broken down by category, is given in the same table.