ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/99

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

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Regulating fishing activity in the South-West Atlantic

Given the Commission's inadequate response to my Written Question E-3471/98, I reiterate what I wrote there and ask:

1. What is the current state of negotiations?

2. What are the reasons for the failure to make any significant progress in these negotiations

3. When does the Commission envisage the negotiations ending and the next step being taken, namely the setting-up of the SAFO?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 1999)

It is still too early to expect completion of negotiations on the multilateral arrangement for South-West Atlantic waters. Ongoing bilateral contacts between the Commission and Argentina are preliminary to multilateral negotiations between all interested parties.

At the moment the only addition that can be made to the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3471/98(1) is that in August 1998 the Commission sent the Argentine authorities a "non-paper" indicating the Community's position.

The Commission awaits the official reaction of the Argentine authorities to this document.

At an informal meeting between the Commission and the Argentine authorities on 2 March the latter stated that they intended to formulate a reply before the summer.

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 74.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: ENEL power line in Valnerina

The Italian national electricity company has decided to build a power line across a section of the areas covered by the Terni and Spoleto town councils and to erect pylons in inhabited areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The Terni town council has expressed its opposition to the project. At the same time, in other Italian regions (Tuscany and Lazio) high-voltage power lines are in the process of being dismantled and the power lines buried (for example in the Parco dell'Aniene).

Does the Commission consider that the decision taken by ENEL is in breach of legislation on electromagnetic pollution and the protection of the environment and public health?

What measures does the Commission intend to take?

Answe given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The decision taken by the Italian National Electricity Company does not give rise to comments by the Commission as to its legality, in the absence of Community provisions in this field.

The Commission has put forward a proposal for a Council recommendation on exposure to electromagnetic fields(1), which is presently being discussed by that institution.

(1) COM(98) 268 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Reallocation of resources saved by COM in fruit and vegetables

Exports of citrus fruits have run up against severe problems in Greece, which is particularly affected by the devastating economic crisis in Russia - previously the destination for the bulk of Greek exports - leaving citrus fruit growers in a dire financial situation. At the same time, export subsidies for fruit and vegetables have been slashed by more than the GATT-agreed figure, producing huge savings amounting to ECU 76 million for 1997-98.

The citrus fruit sector is in need of support in order to improve and increase its export activities and restructuring. Will the Commission, therefore, reallocate the amount of ECU 76 million in savings made in 1997-98 through excessive cutbacks in export subsidies in order to implement measures to help that sector cope with the severe problems it faces?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1999)

The Commission has provided export subsidies for all the quantities permitted by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) within the budgetary limits imposed by that Agreement. Its aim is to maintain export flows, rather than to spend at all costs the total budget permitted by the GATT Agreement. During the 1997/98 marketing year, oranges accounted for 52 % of the total volume of fruit and vegetables receiving export subsidies, and lemons 17 %. In response to the crisis in Russia, which particularly affected Greek oranges, the indicative rates of refund for certain products were increased and, in the case of oranges, the rate has stood at EUR 50 per tonne since January 1999.

The Council is currently examining a proposal for a Regulation prepared by the Commission on measures to promote and provide information on agricultural products in third countries(1). These measures, once implemented, could help support exports of agricultural products, and in particular citrus fruits.

(1) COM(98) 683 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0568/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Update on the URBAN programme in Rome

Having regard to my previous questions E-2221/97(1) and E-3436/98(2) and to the answer given to the latter by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on 25 January 1999, can the Commission provide further information on the reported delays by the municipality of Rome in implementing the URBAN programme and on the arrangements for the use of the funds? In particular, can it provide specific figures relating to the URBAN programme in Rome and other Italian cities?

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

(3 May 1999)

At the end of 1998, the municipality of Rome had committed 28 % of the URBAN budget available to it and spent some 8,4 %.

A table, sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, shows the relative position for all the Italian URBAN municipalities (the figures are provisional).

The Honourable Member may wish to note that the budget available to Rome was reduced in November 1998 by 346 000 euro in view of the delays in implementation, but that current forecasts show a recovery of the delays by the end of April when a commitment level of 70 % is expected.

(1) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998, p. 46.

(2) OJ C 320, 6.11.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/99

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: EU fire safety

Will the Commission list the number of responses received from each EU Member State to the questionnaire sent out by the French company CETEN-APAVE relating to the implementation of the 1986 EU recommendations on fire safety? What action was taken against the countries that failed to respond to the study?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

In the light of the interest that the Honourable Member has shown on several occasions in the 1996 study on fire safety in hotels, and given the amount of detail that he has requested on both the data and the methodology used, the Commission is sending him a copy of this study directly.

The firm that carried out the study sent the approximately 20 000 questionnaires to hotel managers throughout Europe on a voluntary basis in order to supplement the analysis of the regulations applicable in each Member State. Consequently, the Commission had no grounds for taking action against Member States if the information sent did not meet expectations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0693/99

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Ban on importing grape must from third countries

The Commission proposal on the new COM provides for the possibility of importing grape must from third countries and using it to make wine.

This would amount to a serious threat to winemaking in Sicily and the Mediterranean in general, and would also be in clear contradiction with the policy guidelines of the Commission which, on the one hand, is calling on Italian winegrowers to limit production and, on the other hand, is urging the Community to open up to the production of third countries.

Moreover, such non-Community production entitles users in the Member States to be recognized as "producers" for all purposes and hence to benefit from the same aid as producers who use grapes grown in the Community.

What steps does the Commission intend to take:

1. to ensure that grape must from non-Community countries is not imported into Italy, thereby further penalizing Italian agriculture, whose wine sector can be said to symbolize Mediterranean production?

2. to take to ban the current practice in some countries of enriching grape must by adding sucrose?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Council has reached agreement on the proposal for a reform of the common organisation of the market in wine.

This agreement preserves the existing situation where imports of grape must from third countries are concerned and, consequently, prohibits the production of wine from such must.

On the other hand, for a political agreement to be reached on this proposal it was essential to maintain the status quo as regards oenological practices, including the possibility of enriching wines with sucrose in certain regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Funds for Torrita di Siena

The Regional Council of Tuscany's Resolution 424 of 3 November 1993 proposed that part of the municipality of Torrita di Siena be added to the list of less-favoured agricultural areas. Numerous letters were sent to the competent bodies, including those of the EU, from agricultural associations in the area seeking information on the requirements that must be met in order to be added to the list. Years have gone by and numerous requests have been sent, yet still no reply has been received.

Will the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it believes that those concerned have been waiting too long for the necessary explanations about the procedure to follow, as the Regional Council has already given its approval based on Directive 75/268/EC(1);

2. what procedures should be followed under Directive 75/268/EC in order for Torrita di Siena to be added to the list of less-favoured agricultural areas;

3. whether it believes that the improvement of Torrita di Siena is in the general interest and is beneficial, and that funds should be provided as a matter of urgency to safeguard the rural heritage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The request for classification of a part of the "Commune of Torrito di Siena" as a less-favoured area to which the Honourable Member refers, is included in a set of requests from Italian regions which have been notified to the Commission.

For reasons of efficiency, and to conform to procedures applied to other Member States, it was agreed between the Italian authorities and the Commission to treat all requests for modification and extension of less-favoured areas together. These requests concern about 160 communes in four Italian regions.

Community legislation (Council Regulation (EC) 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures(2)), stipulates that when Member States communicate to the Commission the boundaries of the areas proposed for classification as less-favoured areas, they shall equally submit all relevant information on these areas. The Commission then proceeds to the technical examination and, possibly, to the classification of the concerned areas. Up to this moment the information provided by the Italian authorities has not been sufficient to examine the eligibility of those areas, and to proceed to their approval.

Soon it will be impossible for the Commission to classify the areas under the current rules. Concerning the new rules under the draft Council regulation on rural development(3) the responsibility for classification of less-favoured areas will lie with the Member State.

(1) OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(3) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Award of contracts

The city of Vienna is the owner of some 220 000 homes. For decades these have been insured by the same insurance company, even though there has never been any call for tenders.

1. Should there be an invitation to tender, in accordance with relevant EU directives, for individual service and building contracts above the threshold value for homes owned directly or indirectly by the city of Vienna? If not, why not?

2. If so, what action will the Commission take to put an end to this state of affairs which is in violation of the Treaties?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

1. The service contracts and the works contracts which reach the thresholds laid down in the directives(1) and which are awarded by the City of Vienna for housing which it owns directly or indirectly must be awarded in accordance with one of the procedures and according to the rules stipulated in these directives.

2. The Commission would need to have more precise information about the type of insurance services in order to decide whether Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts(2) were applicable in this instance.

The Commission has therefore contacted the Austrian authorities to ask for information on the type of insurance services and the items covered and on existing insurance contracts.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0325/99

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 1999)

Subject: Uneven distribution of air traffic between Milan's Malpensa and Linate airports

With effect from 1 February 1999, Alitalia has dropped the 20.55 flight which it used to operate in conjunction with Meridiana from Rome's Fiumicino airport to Malpensa airport, Milan. This means that, after 17.55, all flights from Rome to Milan have Linate airport as their destination.

Does the Commission consider this state of affairs to be consistent with the commitment to ensure that air traffic is evenly distributed between Malpensa and Milan?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

As provided in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access of Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1) Member States may adopt rules in order to distribute traffic between the different airports of an airport system. These rules are subject to the control of the Commission which ensures that Member States comply with the law by ensuring that rules are fully compatible with the principle of non-discrimination in relation to the nationality and identity of the carriers and that they respect the principles of Community law concerning the freedom to provide services.

Concerning Malpensa and Linate airports, traffic distribution rules are enshrined in the Italian Decree of 9 October 1998 which provides that, as of 25 October 1998 and until access conditions to Malpensa airport are significantly improved, Community air carriers may continue to operate at Linate airport within a limit of 34 % of the frequencies operated at that airport during the preceding International air transport association (IATA) season. Such distribution of traffic between Linate and Malpensa airports can be considered as balanced. It reflects the condition of the existing road and rail access infrastructures to Malpensa airport and at the same time it permits the creation of a fully operational hub at that airport. On this basis, and in accordance with Community law - in particular, the principle of non-discriminatory provision of services - Community air carriers are entirely free to decide to operate a particular service either at Linate or Malpensa, as long as they respect the above mentioned threshold of 34 %. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the fact that Alitalia no longer operates a particular service at Malpensa to be incompatible with the objective of a balanced distribution of traffic between Malpensa and Linate airports.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Ariane

Would the Commission indicate whether it will accept project applications which aim to make books and reading more acceptable to blind and partially-sighted people under the recently agreed ARIANE Programme?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 1999)

The Ariane programme, adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 24 October 1997 (Decision No 2085/97/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 establishing a programme of support including translation, in the field of books and reading (Ariane)(1)) aims to encourage cooperation between the Member States in the field of books and reading; to support and complement their activities in this area, by contributing to the development of their cultures while respecting national and regional diversity; to increase the knowledge and dissemination for the literature and history of the European peoples, as well as access thereto by European citizens, notably through support for the translation of literary works, plays and reference works, support for cooperation projects carried out in partnership and improvement of the skills of professionals in this field.

In the context of action 1, which concerns support for the translation of literary works, plays and reference works, all of the projects submitted must involve the translation of the work at least into one other Community language. Consequently, a project which does not foresee translation to another Community language, but rather concentrates on the changes required in order to make books and reading more accessible to blind and partially sighted people, cannot be eligible under this action.

However, any application submitted under action 2 - support for cooperation projects carried out in partnership which aim to improve the promotion of books and reading, and access by the citizen to them - can involve projects which aim to make books and reading more accessible to blind and partially sighted people, as with any other people. Such projects must of course respect the eligibility criteria, particularly as regards the need for a European dimension.

Finally, the projects submitted under action 3 - which concerns support for improvement of the skills of professionals - may involve both blind people and partially sighted people, on condition that the other criteria for participation are respected.

(1) OJ L 291, 24.10.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0591/99

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Commission studies on radioactive waste management and nuclear safeguards

Will the Commission list each of the instances since 1995 when (a) United Kingdom and (b) Irish Government experts have contributed to Commission studies on (1) radioactive waste management and (2) nuclear safeguards and physical protection measures for plutonium? Will the Commission publish a list of the relevant studies in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

With respect to radioactive waste management and during the period in question, British and Irish government experts, within the usual meaning of the term, have only been active on standing and ad hoc committees, alongside experts appointed by the other Member States. These committees have various roles such as programme management, contract evaluation, and assistance in drafting of reports on specific topics. They have not been involved in studies as such.

However, during this period the Commission has financed numerous studies on various aspects related to radioactive waste and remediation of contaminated areas. These studies have been performed by external contractors selected, in the main, following open calls for tender. Over 20 of these study contracts were awarded to British companies, and British companies were probably involved as subcontractors in many others. British companies and organisations have also been involved in more than 20 research contracts concerning radioactive waste management in the fourth research and technological development (RTD) framework programme. Some of these companies either had, or still have, a majority British government shareholding (e.g. British nuclear fuels Ltd. (BNFL), United Kingdom atomic energy authority (UKAEA)), or represent offices within the British civil service structure (e.g. National radiological protection board (NRPB)). It is not clear whether the contractors' staff in these cases should be regarded as government experts, and in any case a list of all such staff will probably run to several hundred names. However, the results of all study contracts following an open call procedure are available to the public, and reports are normally published in the EUR report series. A full list of titles and contracting companies can be provided if necessary.

Nuclear safeguards is performed by the Commission under Chapter VII of the Euratom Treaty, the implementation of which is defined in Commission Regulation (Euratom) no 3227/76 of 19 October 1976 concerning the application of the provisions on Euratom safeguards(1). National authorities or experts have not been requested to participate in Commission safeguards studies.

(1) OJ L 363, 31.12.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/99

by Edgar Schiedermeier (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Measures to combat social exclusion (promoting actions relating to the family and children)

What is the Commission's view of the demand from the English city of Reading with regard to the measures referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Article 137.2 of the Amsterdam Treaty envisages the possible adoption by the Council of measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences in order to combat social exclusion.

The Commission will shortly publish a call for proposals designed to prepare for Community action along these lines. Issues relating to the exclusion of families and children could certainly be addressed by proposals submitted under this call.

The Commission will of course notify Reading borough council (and the other signatories to their letter) when this call is published. Information regarding this call plus other Commission calls and activities in this area will also be made available on the web: "http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/index_en.htm".