ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1423/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Restructuring and financial adjustment of the EPAC agrifoodstuffs and cereals company

In December 1997 the Portuguese Government notified the European Commission of the measures to be taken as part of the plan for the restructuring and financial adjustment of the EPAC Agrifoodstuffs and Cereals Company.

Following receipt of this information, the Commission asked the Portuguese Government for eleven further items of information which it considered necessary before it could assess the EPAC restructuring project and determine whether it complied with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union.

On 1 April 1998 the EPAC Management Board decided to go ahead with the division of the company into two entities (EPAC Commercial and EPAC S.A., the latter facing closure in the near future) and took steps to dismiss workers from the present EPAC company, most of whom will face long-term unemployment, given their age.

These decisions taken by the EPAC Management Board may of course form part of the plan for the restructuring and financial adjustment of the company, forwarded to the EC in December 1997. However, as far as I know, the Commission has not yet given an opinion on the plan.

1. Will the Commission state whether the decisions taken by the EPAC Management Board were part of the measures proposed in the plan for the restructuring and financial adjustment of the EPAC company, forwarded by the Portuguese Government in December 1997?

2. If so, given that the Commission has not yet delivered a final opinion on the restructuring plan, does it consider it acceptable that the EPAC Management Board has taken decisions which possibly form part of a plan not yet approved by the Commission, in particular with regard to the dismissal of around 120 workers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

The Commission can confirm that the Portuguese government notified in December 1997 a programme for restructuring and financial adjustment of the publicly owned cereal trading company Entreprise publique d'approvisionnement des céréales (EPAC). Since the notified measures concern, among other, the granting of state aids in the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is currently assessing these state aids according to the EC Treaty's competition provisions.

Due to the complexity of the file and its links to other notified state aid cases (Silopor), the Commission has until now been unable to formally express its views on the notified programme. Consequently, it cannot at the present stage reveal the contents of the said programme.

The Commission would nevertheless like to point out that, insofar as matters such as the splitting of two companies and the dismissal of a certain number of a company's workers do not involve the granting of illegal state aid, it is not within its powers to issue opinions about them, even if the company is publicly owned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1348/98

by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Training and certification of flight service technicians

Despite the fact that for years there has been gradual deregulation in the European aeroplane sector, there are still no Community - or in some cases national - rules on "erga omnes" licences and certification for flight service technicians.

By analogy to what is being done for other AV and TA professionals such as air crews and weather forecasters, it now seems essential - also for safety reasons - to introduce European rules governing and harmonizing the sector.

Does the Commission intend to propose Community legislation on the subject and, if so, when?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The Commission agrees that an adequate supply of well-trained air traffic controllers is essential for global aviation safety.

There are several ways to ensure that the necessary level is met. Member States, according to their own traditions, apply various means ranging from in-house requirements which are part of the internal management responsibility of air traffic service providers to full licensing systems by governmental safety regulators.

This differentiated approach has not led to any identifiably detrimental effects for the safety or the interoperability of national air traffic systems within the Community.

Therefore, despite the possible advantages in terms of overall uniformity and cost-efficiency that it might produce, the Commission does not consider the establishment of a harmonised Community scheme for the hiring and training of air traffic controllers to be priority.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Compliance of Greek legislation with Directive 77/187/EEC

Speaking on behalf of the Greek Government, the Minister for Economic Affairs has announced a decision to sell off the Ioniki Trapeza (Ionian Bank) which belongs to the Emboriki Trapeza (Commercial Bank). Despite being urged to do so by bank employees, the owner of the Ioniki Trapeza and the Greek Government have failed to implement Directive 77/187/EEC(1) relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses. The Government's refusal so far to consult the employees is contrary to the above Directive and notably Article 6 thereof which provides for the consultation of employees in good time about matters concerning them.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to prevail upon the Greek Government and the Emboriki Trapeza to comply with the provisions of Directive 77/187/EEC?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses(2) applies to the transfer to another employer of all types of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses conducting an economic activity in the public or private sector.

Article 6.1 of Directive 77/187/EEC specifies the nature of the information the transferor and transferee are required to provide to the representatives of their workers affected by the transfer. This information must be given in good time before the transfer is carried out, and in any event before the transferee's employees are directly affected by the transfer as regards their conditions of work and employment.

Article 6.2 also states that if the transferor or transferee envisages measures in relation to his employees, he must consult the employees' representatives "in good time" and "with a view to seeking agreement".

Member States may limit these obligations to undertakings or businesses which, in respect of the number of employees, fulfil the conditions for the election or designation of a collegiate body representing the employees (Article 6.4).

As Greek legislation satisfactorily transposes the content of Directive 77/187/EEC, any dispute in this connection is a matter for the national courts.

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.

(2) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1354/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Barley intervention

Can the Commission confirm whether there are common standards within the EC for putting barley into intervention? If not does the Commission see a need for this given that disparities exist between Member States, with some Member States requiring barley to be dried to 15 % humidity and others to 14 %?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Yes, there are common standards for putting cereals into intervention, including barley. They are fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies(1). As far as the moisture content is concerned, the regulation allows a maximum of 14,5 %. However, the Council has asked the Commission over the last ten years to provide, by an annual derogation, a maximum of 15 % for Member States requesting such a possibility.

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2225/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Situation in Tibet; EU policy on Tibet

Tibet's political and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, visited Finland on 19 June, eliciting assessments as to what the EU might be able and willing to do to adopt a common policy on Tibet. This would be desirable, as it would make it possible to intervene effectively in the human rights situation in Tibet and for the EU, in common with others, to exert pressure on the negotiations between China and Tibet.

Does the Commission have any plans for adopting a common EU policy on Tibet, and if so, what would its broad outlines be?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Commission recalls that Tibet has regularly been addressed in the framework of both the EU-China political dialogue and the specific bilateral EU-China dialogue on human rights. There was a visit to Tibet 1-10 May 1998 by the troika heads of mission in Beijing.

It has been a long standing policy of the Union to urge the Chinese authorities to respect the basic human rights of the people of Tibet and to help preserve their distinctive culture and way of life. One of the Union's main objectives has been to encourage dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalaï Lama in order to secure a lasting solution to the tensions which exist between the two sides.

In view of the observations made by the troika heads of mission, further reflection is now underway to determine how this policy can be best updated to most effectively create the right conditions for dialogue and reconciliation and to promote the interests of the inhabitants of Tibet.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Thalassaemia

Does the Commission have any information about the prevalence of Thalassaemia in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 1998)

The Commission does not have the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Community Initiatives/Azores

In view of the specific nature of Portugal's Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), would the Commission give details of the amount of Community support received by the region from the Community Initiative (all of them, not just REGIS)during the 1994-1999 financial period? What does the Commission envisage as regards support during the 2000-2006 financial period?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1135/98 and E-1142/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The amounts granted by the Structural Funds to the Azores region of Portugal under the 1994-1999 Community support framework for Portugal total approximately ECU 697 million.

For the same period, under the initiative REGIS II Initiative giving the most remote regions the chance to engage fully in action of the type aided by the other Community Initiatives, the Commission in allocating appropriations between the Initiatives in 1994 granted the Portuguese REGIS II subprogramme for the Azores approximately ECU 63 million (1996 prices).

To these amounts must be added ECU 6,6 million under the LEADER II Community Initiative and ECU 1,84 million under the PESCA Initiative, from which the Azores benefit under the Portuguese national programmes.

A summary table of the amounts granted with a breakdown by Fund and programme financed will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

These amounts include an additional ECU 26 million granted after the storms that ravaged the Azores in December 1996 and January 1997.

Turning to the outlook for the future, the Commission is fully aware of the role played by the the economic and social cohesion policy in developing the Community's most remote regions, and in its proposals for the new programming period has brought them within Objective 1, for which some two-thirds of total Structural Fund aid will be reserved(1).

The criteria for distributing this amount among Member States will be eligible population, national and regional prosperity and severity of structural problems, particularly unemployment.

This will allow Community aid to be concentrated on the regions in greatest difficulty, including the most remote regions. The breakdown between regions of a Member State of the amount allocated to it for a given Objective will however be decided by the Member State.

(1) COM(98) 131.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2048/98

by Jean-Claude Pasty (UPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Tax harmonization in the EU Member States

Will the Commission state whether a branch office situated in France, legally defined as a non-permanent establishment and declared, recognized and taxed as such by the French tax authorities (limited to a professional tax amounting to what is in effect a token payment of approx. FF 150 per annum), can legally be considered as a fixed base within the meaning of Article 15 of the Franco-Luxembourg tax convention of 1 April 1958?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

It is not for the Commission to interpret a convention between two Member States. That is their responsibility alone.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1858/98

by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Blue flags and Cantabria

I am not entirely reassured by the Commission's reply to the written question P-1421/98(1) concerning the awarding of blue flags which I tabled in view of the complaints made against the awarding of such flags to the beaches at Arena, Tregandin, Berria, Magdalena, Concha, etc., and I therefore ask the Commission once again what action it is planning to take with regard to the 1998 Blue Flag Campaign in order to prevent any repetition of the abuses brought to light in the complaints lodged by the ARCA and Mortera Verde associations, of which I am patron.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Within the award procedure for the blue flags, the Commission is only associated to confirm compliance of candidate sites with the water quality criteria set out in Directive 76/160/EEC(2) on bathing water quality. This verification is done on the basis of data provided by the Member States under existing reporting obligations pursuant to the Directive. This information is also the basis for the Commission's annual report on the quality of bathing water in the Community.

The complaints mentioned by the Honourable Member are being investigated by the Commission in the light of Directive 76/160/EEC. The complainants will be informed in due course of the outcome.

(1) OJ C 402, 22 12.1998, p. 130.

(2) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1742/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Asbestos

Is the Commission currently undertaking a full consideration of health and safety concerns surrounding white asbestos?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Yes. Commission policy regarding the protection of health and safety against risks from white or chrysotile asbestos comprises public health, workplace, internal market and environmental components, and takes fully into account health and safety aspects of chrysotile asbestos. In this context, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to written question P-1451/98 by Mr Skinner on the same subject(1).

Moreover, in pursuing its work in the field of worker protection from exposure to asbestos, the Commission is also giving particular attention to the latest available scientific data on chrysotile asbestos and to the Council conclusions of 7 April 1998(2) on the protection of workers against the risks from exposure to asbestos, which are based on the Commission communication(3) on the results of the assessment provided for in Council Directive 83/477/EEC(4).

(1) See page 34.

(2) OJ C 142, 7.5.1998.

(3) COM(96) 426 final.

(4) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Council

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Collective redundancy

Collective redundancy proceedings involving about 40 individuals are under way at the company "Replay", which manufactures plastic products and is based in Scarperia in the province of Florence. The owner, S.P. Metal, whose head office is in Paris, sold the company to A.C.P. Plastic, whose head office is in England, while mobility procedures in respect of workers were under way. The company's management appears to have failed to comply with the Council Directive of 17.2.1975 and subsequent amendments, and with the Council Directive of 14.2.1977 and subsequent amendments, in particular Articles 3, 4, and 6.

Does the Council intend to investigate the possible failure by the management of the company "Replay" to comply with the afore-mentioned directives?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council is not empowered to give an opinion on infringements of Community legislation. It is for the Commission to ensure application of Community law, possibly with Court of Justice supervision.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1451/98

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Chrysotile asbestos

Given the urgent nature of the prohibition on Chrysotile asbestos and effective recognition of substitutes under the Chemical Agent Directive (recently adopted by the Council), will the Commission now bring forward the appropriate proposal for this prohibition during the current Presidency?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work(1), as mentioned by the Honourable Member, provides that the employer shall ensure that the risk from a hazardous chemical agent to the safety and health of workers at work is eliminated or reduced to a minimum and that substitution with less hazardous chemical agents shall preferably be undertaken. However, in the case of asbestos which is a known carcinogen, more rigorous provisions are contained in Council Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work(2), and in Council Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work(3), as amended by Council Directive 91/382/EEC(4). This body of legislation thus requires substitution of dangerous chemicals by other chemicals or processes which are less dangerous.

The Commission understands very well the desire of many Member States and interested parties to introduce a ban on chrysotile asbestos as soon as possible. However, it also recognises the serious concerns which opponents to a ban have raised, concerning the scientific data and the social and economic consequences of a ban.

There is a key scientific issue which Member States and the Commission agree still needs to be clarified. This is an assessment of the relative risk posed by the substitutes in comparison to the risk posed by chrysotile. The Commission has asked the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment to consider this matter and to give an opinion as soon as possible. Because the question is complex, and there is little data on some of the substitutes, the scientific committee has indicated that it may not be able to give a final view before September 1998. The Commission is also awaiting the final report by consultants on a study of the economic consequences of substitution. This report is expected within the next month.

In these circumstances, the Commission has not yet taken a decision to forward a proposal for new legislation on the marketing and use of asbestos. However, the Commission is also taking forward a number of initiatives in cooperation with the European agency for safety and health at work in order to ensure that the exposure from workers to asbestos and substitutes is minimized and that workers get proper information and training about all chemical substances they encounter at the workplace.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(2) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(3) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983.

(4) OJ L 206, 29.7.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1722/98

by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: New measures for the road haulage sector

The Italian Government is preparing to issue measures, in accordance with Law No 454/97 and Bill No 85 of 14 March 1998, to permit a number of road haulage undertakings to double their haulage capacity.

1. Does the Commission not consider that, instead of doubling haulage capacities, the Italian Government should be working towards the regrouping of undertakings, given the present fragmentation of the Italian market?

2. Does it not also consider that such measures run counter to the smooth functioning of the free market, particularly with the prospect of liberalization on 1 July?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

On 24 April 1997, the Italian authorities notified to the Commission a draft law concerning the restructuring of the road sector and the development of intermodality. On 23 December 1997, this draft was adopted as Law No 454 according to the Italian legislative procedure. The text of the final law was subsequently transmitted to the Commission by letter of 30 January 1998.

As the Commission had doubts about the compatibility with the Common Market of the proposed measures, it decided to open a formal investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty on 25 March 1998. (Commission Decision C/21/98).

Since the Honourable Members' questions refer to an ongoing procedure it is clearly not possible for the Commission to make a full and conclusive response to those questions at this juncture.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1598/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Taiwan spirits taxation and EC law

The interim tax offer for spirits with Taiwan differentiates between Scotch/Irish whiskey and other whiskies. This difference amounts to 242 NT$/litre, discriminating in favour of the "other whiskies", namely those from Japan, the USA, Canada, India, Belgium and France.

What are the implications of an agreement under Community law which discriminates in favour of two Member States (in this case France and Belgium) and against two others, namely the United Kingdom and Ireland?