ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Demolition of the former Pacini Theatre by the Fucecchio municipal authorities (Florence)

In 1997 the council of the municipality of Fucecchio (Florence), adopted Decisions Nos 42 and 78 in which it approved a bypass around the historic centre of Fucecchio which would entail the demolition of the former Pacini Theatre, built in 1 700. The theatre would be replaced by a new, larger, reinforced-concrete building and a 400-square-metre section of the public square would be sold to the real-estate company Cabel. The above decisions, which involve changes to the urban development plan, are contrary to Law No 1089 of 1 June 1939 in which Article 1 of the general provisions on the protection of items of artistic and historical interest stipulates that a public square is inalienable by virtue of Article 23, in that it is property of which a public authority may not dispose. The resolutions which the Fucecchio authorities intend to adopt will be extremely detrimental to the Fucecchio community and run counter to the general provisions on the protection of the artistic and cultural heritage, at both national and European levels.

Would the Commission be willing to urge the relevant Italian authorities to ensure that the European cultural heritage is preserved and protected according to the provisions of Article 128 of the Treaty, which stipulates, inter alia, that Community action in the cultural domain should seek to promote the cultures of the Member States whilst at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The EC Treaty and in particular Article 151 thereof (formerly Article 128) gives the Community competence in the area of culture. According to Article 151, Community action is aimed exclusively in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity at contributing to cooperation between Member States; contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity; and fostering cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture.

Consequently, the Commission cannot intervene in a matter which, in this case, is solely the responsibility of Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2187/99

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Treaty of Amsterdam and sport

Although the social significance of sport was recognised, it was effectively effectively left outside the scope of the Treaty. Declaration No 29 annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty does not allow the Community to take any action in the field of sport.

In the light of the social dimension of sport both professional and amateur particularly in forging identity, bringing people together and promoting the Olympic ideals, and of its economic dimension in the creation of new jobs.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that the Community should take action to encourage cooperation between Member States or cooperation with third countries, and to complement the Member States' measures, as is the case with cultural affairs, for example? Is it aware of any practical results that have come out of the above declaration to date?

2. If so, will it take the opportunity of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to propose that sport be incorporated into the new Treaty with the introduction of a relevant chapter?

3. Does it have the necessary structure available to implement a possible Community sports policy?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

Following the Amsterdam Declaration on sport, the Commission initiated a process of reflection on the development of and prospects for Community action in the area of sport. This consultation exercise was brought to a conclusion with the organisation of the European Union Conference on Sport in Olympia (Greece) in May 1999. On the basis of the conclusions of this Conference in particular, the Commission adopted a report on sport on 1 December 1999(1), which was forwarded to the Helsinki European Council. The report proposes strengthening the social and educational dimensions of sport at all levels, primarily in sporting organisations, but also in national and European bodies. This consolidation also involves establishing a stable legal environment for sport that takes account of both the economic dimension of sport and certain characteristics of sporting activities that give them their particularity.

In the document that it submitted for the Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission considered that, as things stand, the time has not yet come to raise the question of including sport in the EC Treaty.

The Commission has a Sport unit in the Directorate-General for Education and Culture. This unit could be expanded depending on developments concerning Community action in the area of sport.

(1) COM(1999) 644 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/99

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Specific indicators to measure wealth, living standards, etc., in the ultraperipheral regions

Article 299(2) of the Treaty acknowledges that factors such as remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate and economic dependence on a few products are prejudicial to the development of the ultraperipheral territories, and were not taken into account when the wealth indicators currently used by the Statistical Office were established.

Does the new Commission intend to study the problem and devise appropriate specific indicators to measure wealth, living standards, under employment and extent of development in these regions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The regular publication of regional statistical indicators (e.g. the unemployment rate and gross domestic product) helps highlight a large number of the problems encountered by the ultraperipheral regions at levels 2 or 3 of the NUTS nomenclature (Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units).

There are no plans in the Community statistical programme to devise specific indicators to analyse the situation in these regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1765/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Naturalisation of Foreigners Act in the Netherlands and discrimination against EU citizens

The Naturalisation of Foreigners Act entered into force in the Netherlands on 30 September 1998. It will only apply to citizens from outside the EU.

1. What is the Commission's view of the Act?

2. If the Commission feels the Act involves discrimination, will it draw the Netherlands' attention to this?

3. Why has the Commission still not replied to complaints from Dutch organisations, for example the complaint lodged on 8 September 1998 by LIZE (national consultative body of Southern Europeans) (dealt with by Carmel O'Reilly, reference Cabinet Flynn/ms D(98))?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

The purpose of the Act in question is to help new arrivals to integrate. This is achieved by offering them Dutch courses as well as courses designed to improve their chances on the labour market. Participation in the integration programme is compulsory for new arrivals who, on the basis of an official test, are deemed to have insufficient knowledge of Dutch to be able to integrate into Dutch society in general and the labour market in particular. Failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the Act may result in a fine or other penalty.

The exclusion of Community nationals from the education programmes offered in accordance with the Act has highlighted the extreme complexity of the subject, necessitating detailed investigations.

The Commission is carrying out a thorough examination of the problem and will keep the Honourable Member informed of its conclusions.

The Commission regrets the delay in replying to the letter referred to by the Honourable Member. The body in question has recently received a letter on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/99

by Marialiese Flemming (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Hunting season for migratory bird species

Council Directive 79/0409/EEC(1) on the conservation of wild birds sets out the European Union's commitment to conserving all species of wild birds occurring naturally in the European territory of the Member States.

With regard to the hunting of certain species, the directive requires Member States to ensure that the principles of wise use and ecologically balanced control of populations of the species concerned, in particular migratory species, are observed. They are required to ensure that migratory species in particular are not hunted during the various stages of reproduction or the rearing season.

In March 1994 the Commission proposed an amendment to the directive, leaving it to each Member State to determine the period of the hunting season. The Commission proposal, which did not lay down a uniform EU-wide date for the end of the hunting season, was debated by the European Parliament. In February 1996, Members voted in favour of the annual hunting season ending on 31 January throughout the EU.

What steps have since been taken by the Council to meet Parliament's demand?

Some Member States have fixed the period of the hunting season in a way which puts at risk the conservation of certain species. For example, the hunting season in France opens at a time when young birds are still dependent on being cared for by their parents. This contravenes of Article 7 (4) of Directive 79/0409/EEC. For that reason, infringement proceedings have been instituted against France.

What stage has been reached in the proceedings?

What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that the provisions of Directive 79/0409/EEC are implemented in all the Member States?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Reply

(2 December 1999)

In examining the Commission proposal, which defines the extent of Member States' discretion with regard particularly to the date of the end of the hunting season, the Council specifically considered the possibility of a single cut-off date, which could fall between 31 January and 10 March. The Council noted the opinion of the European Parliament on this subject in 1996, in favour of a uniform EU-wide date for the end of the hunting season, namely 31 January each year. However the Council has not yet managed to find a solution which might achieve unanimous agreement on all the problems raised by the Commission proposal.

In order to facilitate as broad an agreement as possible, contacts between the Member States concerned are currently underway.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2575/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Lack of infrastructures and facilities at Patras Port

The recent tragic accident involving the passenger ship Superfast III in which 12 people died in a fire which broke out 14 nautical miles from Patras Port has highlighted the chronic problems facing this port. The very poor infrastructures and facilities pose a threat to the health and safety of passengers and hamper passenger embarkation, disembarkation and control procedures as well as basic control procedures on freight vehicles.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to demand that the Greek Government take immediate action to improve Patras Port facilities for the benefit of passengers, especially given that Greece receives Community funding for the improvement of ports, funding which however is usually channelled solely into the freight sector?

2. Does it know why the relevant Greek ministry has failed to carry out improvements to Patras Port facilities, as the Commission had suggested on the basis of proposals made in studies carried out by the relevant service in the port of Dover and, if not, does it intend to seek clarification on this point?

3. Even though Directive 1999/35(1) becomes mandatory for the Member States only on 1 December 2000, does the Commission intend to ask the Greek Government as a gesture of goodwill to publish the findings of the inquiry into the Superfast III tragedy and to forward a copy to the Commission, in accordance with Article 12 of the above directive?

4. Does the Commission have any proposals for improving the basic safety and health infrastructures for passengers at other ports in Greece (Piraeus, Igoumenitsa, the ports of various islands, etc.) and what commitments will it ask the Greek Government to provide in this connection?

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/99

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: ENEL's acquisition of a 30 % holding in Telepiù

ENEL is a public company and the recent liberalisation measures in the electricity sector in Italy have not in practice affected its role as a monopoly (in any case, the law assigns to ENEL a share of the domestic consumption market ). The corporation has announced its intention to acquire 30 % of the capital of the Franco-Italian pay-TV network Telepiù.

Does the Commission not consider that the investment of approximately 1 000 billion lire in the Franco-Italian group Telepiù-Canal Plus constitutes a distortion of competition on the European pay-TV market? In particular, does it not consider, given the public status of ENEL and its monopoly position in the energy sector, that the purchase of 30 % of the capital of that company may be seen as improper State aid, incompatible with Article 87 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

The Commission's policy in a sector characterised by rapid technological innovation, such as pay-TV, is to encourage the emergence of several competing operators to prevent monopolies being created, provided there is sufficient demand on the market in question. The Commission welcomes the fact that two competitors are operating in this sector in Italy and is following with interest operations designed to accelerate the digital revolution and to consolidate multimedia and interactive services.

The fact that a public company like ENEL has acquired a stake in the capital of a private company in the pay-TV sector does not in itself constitute a distortion of competition on that market.

As regards the possibility that the operation may comprise state aid within the meaning of Article 87 (former Article 92), under the EC Treaty rules on state aid public undertakings may use their own resources for acquisitions, provided the expected return on the investment is comparable with that which a

private investor operating under normal market economy conditions(1) would require. The Commission has written to the Italian authorities requesting information so that it can examine ENEL's investment and determine whether it comprises a state aid component.

(1) Commission communication to the Member States Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/0723/CEE to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector: OJ C 307, 13.11.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/99

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Attacks on homosexuals

There has recently been an escalation in the number of attacks on gay and lesbian communities throughout Europe. Incidents such as the throwing of an explosive device at a gay bar in the city of Gijón on 1 August 1999, or the terrorist attack on a similar establishment in London in which several lives were lost, are truly alarming developments.

Such crimes are particularly serious in a region such as the European Union, where the protection of human rights is a basic issue, especially at the present time when we are drafting a European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Moreover, the basic treaties of the European Union incorporate such principles as freedom of, entitlement to and respect for any religious, political or sexual opinion and prohibit discrimination on any of these grounds.

Hence under new Article 13 introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam the Council is entitled to take appropriate action, on a proposal from the Commission, to combat discrimination based, amongst other things, on sexual orientation. For this reason, deplorable incidents of this kind call for a clear and tough response from the Union's institutions, and specifically from the Commission as the proper guardian of the Treaties.

The Commission:

1. Can it give details of the number of attacks on gays, lesbians and trans-sexuals within the territory of the European Union, in each of the Member States, from 1995 to date?

2. What range of measures does it plan to take to prevent and avoid attacks of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 1999)

1. The Commission does not have the information requested.

With regard to non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Commission co-funded in 1998 a report of the International lesbian and gay association (ILGA) entitled Equality for lesbians and gay men. This report gives a comprehensive overview of the legal and social situation of lesbians and gay men in the 15 Member States. The Commission is sending copies of the report direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

2. Article 13 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 6a), empowers the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sexual orientation. Following extensive consultations, the Commission intends to propose a package of anti-discrimination measures based on Article 13 in the near future, involving both legislation and an action programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) and Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Bombing of the Iraqi population

For months now the United States and British air forces have been bombing Iraq and the rest of the world has looked on with indifference. No resolution by the UN or any other international organisation provides support for such action, which has caused death and destruction among the civilian population.

Does the Council agree with the statement made by the spokesman at the UN for the French Government, which states that we must reiterate our deep disquiet about the unwarranted continuation of these increasingly severe bombing raids whose purpose is not clear to us?

Reply

(2 December 1999)

The Council is deeply concerned about the serious situation in Iraq.

It considers lasting security and stability in the region as well as the living conditions of the Iraqi people to be the prime considerations for the UN Secrurity Council in reaching an agreement on Iraq.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2108/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What timescale has been set out by the European Commission to rectify Air Traffic Control delays?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1637/99

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Legal documentation forwarded to the Commission regarding the establishment of the EU Food and Veterinary Office at Grange, Co. Meath, Ireland

When exactly was the legal documentation regarding the construction of the EU Food and Veterinary Office in Grange, Co. Meath, Ireland presented by the Irish Government's Office of Public Works to the Commission, why has it not yet been signed, and when is it likely to be signed?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

The Office of Public Works presented the legal documentation regarding the construction of the Food and veterinary office (FVO) in Grange, Co. Neath to the Commission through the Commission's solicitor on 8 June 1999.

This documentation was necessary to allow a global verification of the clauses of the contract including financial commitments; an internal procedure requiring the visa of many departments of the Commission; and a memorandum to the budgetary authority in accordance with the statements made by the Commission in preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget No 1/97(1) which stipulated that the Commission will inform the budgetary authority of the long-term costs of the Grange project as soon as the total costs are known.

The internal procedures were completed on 10 September 1999 when the Commission adopted a Communication(2) to the budget authority on the acquisition of the new building for the FVO in Grange. The contract was subsequently signed on behalf of the Commission on 13 September 1999 and transmitted to the solicitors.

(1) SEC(97) 750 final.

(2) SEC(1999) 1324.