ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3325/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Effects of the crisis in Russia on its nuclear safety

The deepening political and economic crisis in Russia has already created problems with the country's energy supplies. According to recent news reports the nuclear power station at Sosnoviy Bor near St. Petersburg has filed for bankruptcy on the grounds of debt, and the salaries of workers at nuclear power stations in the Kola peninsula have been in arrears for several months.

How much of a threat does the Commission consider the Russian crisis poses to the country's nuclear safety? What does the Commission propose to do to identify the nuclear safety problems caused by the crisis in its cooperation with the Russian authorities?

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

(1 December 1998)

The Commission is certainly concerned by the impact that the current crisis in Russia will have on nuclear safety. The present situation confirms the importance that the Commission has placed on activities in this sector. In particular through a twinning between Community utilities and most nuclear power plants in Russia, the Commission supports a permanent monitoring of the situation at these installations, the transfer of Community working methods and important supplies of safety-related equipment.

The Russian crisis has also highlighted the fact that nuclear safety is not only a technical issue, but an economic and structural issue, and must be addressed as such. For this reason, the Commission has included assistance for the restructuring of the nuclear sector in Russia in its programme.

Concerning the non-payment of wages, it should be noted that this is a chronic problem, and one may question whether the current crisis will exacerbate it further. However, the payment of salaries is a centre-piece of the new government's programme, and it is to be hoped that the government will address the root causes of this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Integrity of sites protected by the Habitats directive

Does an upgrading of a road that passes through a Protected Area under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC(1), such that the road will be able for the first time to carry 40 tonne heavy goods vehicles, constitute a development that might damage the integrity of the site and should it therefore require an assessment under the terms of the Habitat Directive?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2868/98 and E-2869/98 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) "any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives".

Only the Court of justice can provide a definitive interpretation as to whether actions of the kind mentioned by the Honourable Member fall to be assessed under this provision. However, it is evident from the wording of the provision that, before an assessment becomes necessary, there must at least be a likelihood of significant effects arising from the action. An action such as signposting or increasing the permitted tonnage of user vehicles which may have the effect of increasing the intensity of use of an existing road would not, in the Commission's view, automatically require an assessment. Much would depend on the specific circumstances of the protected area concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU funds to Lower Austria

With regard to the allocation of EU funds to the State of Lower Austria, can the Commission provide information as to:

1. the total amount of EU structural fund appropriations provided, with a breakdown by fund and by individual Community programme and/or initiative and the amount of EU funds disbursed for pilot projects and other measures or as direct payments to research institutes, universities, undertakings and other bodies in the State of Lower Austria, charged to other budgetary headings since 1995;

2. the number of jobs created or saved with the help of these funds?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/98

by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Regulations governing charter flights

Can the Commission inform me if there are any regulations or proposed regulations governing service provision of charter flights in Europe?

In particular are there any regulations concerning delays and compensation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

The establishment of a liberalised civil aviation market in the Community on 1 January 1993 ended differences between scheduled and non-scheduled air services in respect of access to intra-Community links. Consequently, no particular provisions govern the service provisions of charter flights in Europe.

Nevertheless, Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours(1) provides certain provisions for passengers travelling on a package tour. According to Article 4 of this Directive, the tour organiser has a liability for compensating the consumer for any difference between the services offered and those supplied. Delays are not, however, expressly covered.

Passengers buying transport on non-scheduled flights are not currently covered by this Directive. A Council regulation(2) which amends Regulation (EEC) 295/91 of 4 February 1991 should remedy that omission by extending the rules for a denied boarding compensation system to non-scheduled flights.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2) COM(98) 580 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/98

by Fernand Le Rachinel (NI) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Substantial difference between the postage rates of the Member States of the European Union

The cost of subscribing to a newspaper or magazine can double according to whether the subscription is taken out in the country of publication and circulation or abroad; this difference, which is in no way justified by the distance, is said to be due to prohibitive postage rates.

Can the European Commission confirm this information, and, if so, how does it intend to correct these distortions of competition, which have an adverse effect on freedom of information and freedom to circulate "intellectual products" such as newspapers and other publications?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Postage charges do account for a considerable proportion of the cost of subscribing to a newspaper or magazine, particularly when a daily newspaper is to be delivered.

The difference between national and intra-Community postal rates is due mainly to two factors. Firstly, high costs are involved in routing and delivering press material as priority mail outside national borders in such a way as to guarantee the requisite quality of service for such items, notably compliance with deadlines.

Secondly, some Member States grant preferential rates for the distribution of press material within the country. These special rates may therefore be reflected in the price of subscriptions taken out for that country.

Community rules are not contrary to the principle of preferential rates being granted in certain Member States for press consignments, provided that principle is not discriminatory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3068/98

by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Council

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Plans to make lotteries subject to European competition law

The opening of infringement proceedings against Ireland pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice and proposals to make lotteries subject to European competition law rather than national legislation have given rise to some debate in the Federal Republic of Germany.

As far as I am aware, the German Länder do not intend to open up the German lottery market to foreign organisers. A range of different issues play a crucial role here, in particular tax considerations.

Can the Council say:

1. What led the Council to abandon its original declaration at the EU summit in Edinburgh of 12 December 1992 that it would not seek to regulate lotteries?

2. What opinion has the Council expressed in relation to the request by a Finnish court for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice in the Läärä case C-124/97?

3. Has the subject been discussed in the Ecofin Council and, if not, when are such discussions scheduled to take place?

Reply

(18/19 January 1999)

In reply to the questions put by the Honourable Member concerning possible regulation of lotteries at Community level, the Council would like to make the following points.

The Council has received no proposal for any legal act for the purpose of regulating games of chance. Consequently, there are no plans for a Council act in this area.

The Council would also point out that the infringement proceedings referred to in Article 169 of the EC Treaty do not provide for intervention by the Council.

Furthermore, since no act of the Council is in question in the case before the Court to which the Honourable Member refers, no intervention by the Council in this case can be contemplated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2376/98

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Language learning

Could the Commission tell me whether there are any current European initiatives in place which help adult citizens of Member States learn the language of other Member States?

If not, are there any intentions to do so, bearing in mind the importance of good communication between Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

The Lingua actions within the Socrates programme are horizontal measures designed to improve the quality and quantity of the teaching and learning of languages, addressing all levels and sectors of education. The language learning of adult citizens is therefore targeted by the Lingua actions. These actions are complementary to the measures enhancing language learning provided in the framework of the Leonardo Da Vinci programme.

Within the Socrates programme adult citizens are targeted as learners of foreign languages explicitly through Lingua action D which supports the development of language teaching and learning materials and curricula, and where priority is given to projects which promote self-learning tools and make pertinent use of open and distance learning approaches. Within the same action instruments for the assessment of linguistic competencies are developed which enable adult learners to evaluate their language skills.

Within the Leonardo Da Vinci programme the language learning needs of adults in the professional context are targeted through projects which develop didactic materials and training curricula.

The European project Lingu@net which receives funding under Socrates and Leonardo Da Vinci is developing a virtual resource centre which will provide information on language learning facilities for adult learners among others.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3087/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Classification of ramson and its production

What is the Commission's view of the classification of ramson as a foodstuff or medicine?

Is the Commission aware that dried ramson leaves (granulate, powder in capsules) are lawfully in circulation as a foodstuff in Greece, the Netherlands and Austria, while they are to be classified as a medicine in other countries, such as Germany?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The classification of ransom (alium ursinum) as a foodstuff or medicinal product depends on the presentation of the product to the consumer. According to Article 1 of Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products(1)"any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals" has to be considered as a medicinal product. If, therefore, a medical claim is indicated on the labelling of a product containing ransom, this product must be considered as a medicinal product, whilst the same product may be legally marketed as foodstuff if no medicinal claim is made.

The Commission does not possess specific information concerning the commercialisation of products containing dried ransom leaves in the Community. The fact that these products are marketed sometimes as foodstuffs and sometimes as medicinal products may, however, be the consequence of the legal situation illustrated above.

(1) OJ L 22, 9.2.1965.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Degree of responsibility borne by the former Director of ECHO in the ECHO affair

In its answer dated 11 September 1998 to the question raised in Mr Fabra Vallés initial working document (PE 226.913) on the measures taken by the Commission in response to Special Report No 2/97 and the ECHO affair, the Commission indicated that only one official, who had now been suspended, was suspected of involvement.

Will the Commission kindly explain to me how it can continue to maintain that the then Director of ECHO was not aware of the existence of a number of staff recruited irregularly (i.e. in a manner other than that laid down in the Staff Regulations), given that, in a note (Sgz/mg D(94) 192) dated 18 February 1994, the Private Office of Commissioner Marín stated that there were 12 people on the ECHO staff who had been irregularly recruited and charged to operating appropriations and another four recruited and charged to the "Studies" budget line. In that note, the Director of ECHO concerned estimated the percentage of "submarines" on the ECHO staff at between 3 % and 15 %.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3638/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Fisheries inspectors

Can the Commission state how many inspectors are employed to monitor fish catches landed at ports in each of the following three countries: Spain, the UK and Ireland?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

The figures on employment of fishery inspectors which the three Member States in question provided for 1997 are as follows:

- Spain: 42 national fishery inspectors (of whom 32 are based in the main fishing ports) and 238 regional fishery inspectors

- United Kingdom: 155 fishery inspectors (of whom 12 are assigned to the headquarters)

- Ireland: 24 fishery inspectors (of whom 20 are based in the main fishing ports).

It will be a duty of these inspectors to monitor fish landings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2289/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Interreg drought programme for Spain

In view of the fact that the Interreg drought programme for Spain has been adopted with funding of ECU 107 million from the ERDF and the EAGGF, and in order to allow a comparison to be made with the way in which the case of the Alqueva reservoir (which has received a lower level of ERDF funding) was dealt with, would the Commission provide information regarding the terms and conditions under which the above funding was provided?

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

(9 October 1998)

The terms and conditions for financing the Alqueva reservoir arise from the general regulations governing the implementation of the Structural Funds and the specific conditions peculiar to this major project, as defined and approved by the Commission and the beneficiary Member State.

The terms and conditions for financing the Interreg drought programme for Spain are those that apply to any Community programme and are subject to the same general regulations with regard to the arrangements for granting and implementing Community assistance, the rules on the combining of different types of such assistance and the de minimis rules.

If a comparison is made with the ERDF funding of the Alqueva reservoir, the Honourable Member will find that the ERDF contributes to the Interreg-II-C Spain programme, which concerns seven Objective 1 regions (i.e. 344 189 km2 and 18,7 million inhabitants), the sum of ECU 56,65 million.

The Commission is forwarding directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a copy of the press release, summary information sheet and programme, as approved, to which the decision taken by the Commission on 29 June 1998 relates.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3885/98

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: European aid for the Netherlands Antilles

Is it true that the Deutsch-Caribbean Travel Centre in Frankfurt has received EU aid for an advertising campaign?

Is it also true that that advertising budget amounts to about EUR 5,5 million from EU funds?

On what legal basis and from which aid fund was that amount paid out to DCTC?

How does the Commission justify the granting of this aid when these Caribbean islands, compared with other regions, enjoy a high standard of living with very little poverty or crime?

What is the objective of the aid?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

It is not quite accurate to say that the Dutch Caribbean Travel Centre in Frankfurt has received Community aid for an advertising campaign.

The aid in question, part of a regional programme for the Caribbean, is for a EUR 5 million project to promote tourism in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The target audience comprises the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland), Italy and the Netherlands, and the project includes EUR 1,56 million for technical assistance over four years, in the form of overall coordination services and technical support for the Dutch Caribbean Travel Centre in Frankfurt.

As with all Community finance for this category of country from the seventh European Development Fund, the legal basis for the aid is Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (1), adopted by the representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council. In any case, before the Commission adopts the financing decision for each individual project it also obtains the approval of the Member States via the EDF Committee.

(1) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Construction of nuclear power plant at Akkuyu - risk to eastern Mediterranean

Despite a general outcry, the Turkish Government recently decided to proceed with the construction of a nuclear power plant in the region of Akkuyu on its southern shores, which is scheduled to commence operation in 2006. It should be stressed that the risk of a nuclear accident is particularly high, as the region around Akkuyu is exceptionally prone to earthquake. Last June, a tremor measuring 6.2 on the Richter Scale left 100 people dead and some 1000 others injured. The negligible contribution of this nuclear power plant to Turkey's energy requirements (2-3 %) casts doubt on the expediency of building it. It should also be stressed that there will be serious environmental repercussions not only in the event of an accident but at all times, as there is no safe way of disposing of the nuclear waste. What representations has the Commission made to the Turkish Government and what measures will it take to safeguard the environmental balance in the eastern Mediterranean region?

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

(15 January 1999)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-662/98 (Mr Kaklamanis)(1), E-2107/98 (Mr Alavanos)(2), E-2190/98 (Mr Kaklamanis)(3) and to oral question H-11/98 (question time at the February 1998 session -Ms Kokkola)(4).

The European strategy for Turkey includes closer cooperation on environmental matters with the aim inter alia of bringing Turkey's law into line with that of the Community. The ability to take specific cooperation measures will depend on the budget appropriations available to implement the strategy. As requested by the Cardiff European Council, the Commission adopted proposals on 21 October which are now before the budget authority.

(1) OJ C 304, 20.10.1998.

(2) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 37.

(3) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 54.

(4) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Breast cancer and the pesticide "Lindane"

In the reply to Question No E-0405/96(1) the Commission referred to a decision being expected "during the course of 1997" on a re-evaluation of the possible effects of lindane. Given that there has been no contact with the Member by the Commission on this subject, would the Commission be able to confirm the current position?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's reply to Written Question E-2737/98 of Mrs Oddy(2).

There has been a delay in the finalisation of the monograph for lindane. On 8 June 1998 the Commission sent a reminder. Austria, rapporteur Member State for lindane, has announced that the monograph would be sent to the Commission at the end of October or the beginning of November 1998.

It seems very probable that on receipt of the monograph intensive discussions will be required between Member States' experts in the different technical areas covered by the evaluation. This examination, including a detailed peer review with selected experts, will start early in 1999. A decision will be taken by the Commission as soon as possible after consultation of the scientific committee on plants.

(1) OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 57.

(2) See page 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2737/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Lindane

Will the Commission urgently consider the banning of lindane, an organochlorine pesticide which is a highly toxic poison and can pose serious risks to health and the environment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

At present the maximum residue limits for lindane are fixed by Council Directive 76/895/EEC(1) of 23 November 1976 relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables, Council Directive 86/362/EEC(2) of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals and Council Directive 90/642/EEC(3) of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables.

This active substance is one of the 90 active substances covered by the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC(4) of 15 July 1991 concerning the marketing of plant protection products. A report on this active substance is currently being prepared by the rapporteur Member State (Austria).

When the Commission receives the report from the rapporteur Member State, an intensive scientific and technical examination with all the Member States will take place to ascertain the impact of this active substance on human health and the environment. The Commission will then be in a position to take an appropriate decision for this active substance.

(1) OJ L 340, 9.12.1976.

(2) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986.

(3) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990.

(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.