ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Right to vote in municipal elections

The Treaty on European Union grants the right to vote in European elections to all citizens of the Union, even if they are resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Directive 94/80/EC ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38. )), laying down detailed arrangements concerning this right, has not yet been transposed by Belgium, despite its obligation to do so before 1 January 1996.

Which other Member States have failed to transpose the above directive?

Has the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the TEU against these states, as it has in the case of Belgium?

Given that the Belgian Government has not replied to the Commission's reasoned opinion, what is preventing the Commission from bringing the matter before the Court of Justice? Has the Commission set a deadline for a reply from the Belgian Government?

How many EU citizens resident in Belgium are affected by this delay?

How many EU citizens are resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals in the whole European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The Commission has opened proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against all the Member States which failed to implement, in due time, Council Directive 94/80/EC which lays down the detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections for citizens of the Union resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals.

These Member States are Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Austria (partial implementation), Finland and Sweden.

Belgium has replied to the Commission's reasoned opinion. The Commission will decide in the near future whether to bring the matter before the Court of justice. On 1 January 1994, the number of foreign citizens resident in Belgium was approximately 550 000. The total number of Union citizens resident in another Member State was approximately 5 470 000 ((Eurostat; Demographic Statistics 1996, pages 48-49. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Activities of Turkish organizations in Pakistan and Pakistan's nuclear programme

It is reported that private Pakistani organizations funded by Turkish Islamic organizations are operating in the city of Peshawar, close to the Afghan border: one of their activities is to send printed matter to the region of Sinkiang.

Another aspect of Sino-Pakistani relations is revealed by substantiated reports that three Chinese M11 missiles have been dispatched to and stationed in Pakistan and that a base has been constructed (in the region of Taxila) where missiles of the same type, to be constructed in Pakistan with Chinese technical aid, are to be stationed.

These missiles can be fitted with a nuclear warhead and have a range of five hundred kilometres.

This curious cooperation between Pakistan and China on the one hand, and Pakistan and Turkey on the other, and the secret funding by Turkish Islamic organizations are clearly a cause for concern and confirm fears that Turkey is closely involved in destabilizing activities in a region in which the European Union has vital interests.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of this matter, and what activities it has taken - or intends to take in future - to identify the Turkish Islamic organizations involved in these destabilizing activities which put in jeopardy the entire region?

Answer given Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

The Commission has no information about the matter raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Environmental projects financed by the Cohesion Fund

The following environmental projects were covered by the Cohesion Fund in 1995 and were scheduled to be completed by 31 December 1996:

a) Project No 94/09/61/029 - 2, entitled 'Agrinion Sewage Purification Plant';

b) Project No 94/09/61/031 - 1, entitled 'Disposal of untreated waste in Xylokastro, Greece';

c) Project No 94/09/61/031 - 2, entitled 'Completion of the sewage system of Kiaton, Greece';

d) Project No 94/09/61/037 - 2, entitled 'Completion of the sewage system of Xanthi, Greece'.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether the above projects had been completed;

2. if not, what stage they have reached (funding, construction work): and

3. if there are delays, what they are due to?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The Commission can give the following information.

Project No 94.09.61.029-2 - waste water treatment Plant at Agrinion

On 6 December 1995 the Commission adopted a decision fixing 31 December 1996 as the date for completion of work. However, in response to a request by the Greek authorities on 9 July 1996 for an amendment to the substance of the project (additional work), on 12 December 1996 the Commission adopted a decision postponing the date of completion to 31 December 1998.

At the Monitoring Committee meeting held on 19 March 1997 in Athens, it was noted that work is progressing normally. According to the technical report by the Greek authorities, the plant will be operational in 1998.

Community assistance for 1995-98 amounts to ECU 8 109 928.

Project No 94.09.61.031-1 - waste-water disposal for Xylokastro

The Commission adopted this project by decision of 18 December 1995. According to the technical report drawn up by the Greek authorities and submitted to the Monitoring Committee on 19 March 1997, the project has been completed. The Commission is awaiting the final report from the Greek authorities in order to close this dossier.

Community assistance for 1995-96 amounts to ECU 379 950.

Project No 94.09.61.031-2 - Completion of the waste-water disposal system for Kiato

The Commission adopted this project by decision of 18 December 1995. The project should have been completed on 31 December 1996. At the Monitoring Committee meeting on 19 March 1997, the Greek authorities proposed postponing the date of completion of work to 31 December 1997, without any increase in the total cost of the project, because work had been held up by exceptionally bad weather during the winter which caused great damage in the city. The Commission accepted this proposal.

Community assistance for 1995-96 amounts to ECU 1 414 084.

Project No 94.09.61.037-2 - Completion of the waste-water disposal system for Xanthi

The Commission adopted this project by decision of 18 December 1995. The project has been completed.

Community assistance amounted to ECU 1 694 352 and was fully taken up.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Evaluation of budget line B7-6212 (Maternal and child health care)

In answer to a parliamentary question (E-1511/96) ((OJ C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 7. )) on the administration of budget line B7-6212, Mr Pinheiro said that the Commission planned in 1996 to spend ECU 0.5 million on a study and evaluation of the pilot projects financed under B7-6212 in 1994 'with the aim of deriving guidelines and avenues of approach for the formulation of innovative schemes in this sector'.

Can the Commission now make known the results of this study and provide full information on these guidelines?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-954/97.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 204. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1220/97 by Leen van der Waal (I-EDN) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Methods of contraception, sterilization and abortion used in countries receiving funding for population control programmes from the European Union

For countries which receive funding for population control programmes from the European Union, what are the specific methods of contraception, sterilization and abortion used in each country?

In this respect, which are the brands of pills, drugs and other agents available in those countries?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

Due to the very wide range of methods of contraception, sterilisation and abortion and brands of pills, drugs and other agents now in existence and due to the rate at which these change, particularly in large countries, it is not possible for the Commission to maintain a detailed overview of methods and brands used in countries in which Community funded activities take place. In this regard, the Commission has to rely on external sources of information such as those provided by the United Nations population fund (UNFPA).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1029/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Risk to the health of the public and employees as a result of underestimating neutron radiation during transport of highly radioactive waste

What is the Council's view of the calculations published by Prof. Horst Kuni, a specialist in nuclear medicine at the Medical Centre for Radiology, Philipps University, Marburg, according to which the biological impact of neutron radiation are being underestimated by Germany's regulation on radiation protection by a factor of 30?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1029/97, E-1031/97 and E-1033/97 (2 July 1997)

On 13 May 1996 the Council adopted Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. )). Adoption of that Directive has enabled protection standards in the previous Directives to be strengthened, in the light of, in particular, recent scientific data.

With particular reference to the assessment of the effects of various types and energies of ionizing radiation, Articles 15 and 16 of the Directive provide for the use of the radiation weighting factor values annexed to the Directive, which are those recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its publication No 60, to which the Honourable member refers. Article 15 also stipulates that the competent authorities may authorize the use of equivalent methods. This possibility is of particular value where a knowledge of the actual parameteres of the situation enables the dose to be estimated more precisely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Expenditure controls

With reference to the Court of Auditors' observations on the Commission's revenue and operating appropriations and on the European development funds, will the Commission say whether the financing of expenditure intended for measures to combat fraud and irregularities is decided directly by the Commission and administered by it, or in cooperation with the relevant national services?

What steps will the Commission take in response to the finding that, following checks made in four Member States, neither the Commission nor the Member States were monitoring expenditure declarations closely enough, resulting in significant losses to the Community budget?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1997)

The arrangements for the joint funding of direct expenditure on anti-fraud activities are laid down in the Council Regulations allocating this funding between the Member States. The Commission takes its decisions in accordance with these Regulations. It is for the national administrations to implement the necessary controls and to make proper use of the Community funds allocated to them.

The documentation on expenditure carried out by the Member States is checked by the Commission. Moreover, on-site visits are made to examine the supporting documents and the progress of measures.

The Commission rigorously followed up the cases raised by the Court of Auditors in direct contacts with the Member States concerned.

Where ineligible expenditure was confirmed, the Commission has already started proceedings to recover the relevant Community funding. It should also be noted that a number of cases referred to by the Court have since been fully justified by the Member States concerned, so the funding queried in those cases need no longer be considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/97 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: Allocation of slots to airlines

The airline Noman, which has suspended its operations and is in serious financial difficulties, has had its slots withdrawn after failing to use them at a rate of 80%, the threshold below which, under Community law, slots are suspended and redistributed between airlines.

Civilavia, the directorate-general for civil aviation in the Italian Ministry of Transport, has transferred Noman's slots en bloc to the airline Airone, which operates in Italian territory, thereby giving rise to considerable doubts and uncertainty as to the transparency of the operation.

Could the Commission state its position on this case and say whether it believes that, in this particular situation, the allocation of these slots is a blatant violation of European law and the rules on competition between undertakings, laid down in the Treaty on European Union, have clearly been diverted?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports ((OJ L 14, 22.1.1993. )) provides that an air carrier shall be entitled to a specific slot on condition that it used the same slots during the previous equivalent operating period at a rate of at least 80%. Otherwise, the slots are placed in a pool and distributed by the airport coordinator among applicant air carriers in accordance with certain pre-defined priority rules, unless the non-utilization can be justified on one of the grounds explicitly mentioned in the Regulation. Those grounds include, in particular, the case of serious financial damage for a Community air carrier undergoing financial reorganization. The Regulation further provides that slots may subject to conditions be transferred by one air carrier to another as a result of a total or partial takeover.

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has been informed by the Italian authorities that NOMAN has been granted a temporary operating licence pending financial reorganization and that certain of its activities have been taken over by AIR ONE. On the basis of such information the Commission has no grounds to suspect that the Community rules outlined above were not fully respected in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1684/97 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: EU contributions/volume of aid

In Austria different figures are circulating in the media on the actual contribution made by Austria and the amount it receives from the various aid programmes.

1. What was Austria's contribution as a Member State in 1996?

2. What will the level of contributions be in 1997 and 1998?

3. What was the level of funding planned by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

4. What was the level of funding approved by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

5. What funding (broken down by areas of support and budget titles) actually returned to Austria in 1996?

6. What is the difference between the theoretical level of funding, the level of funding approved by the EU and the funding which actually returned to Austria in 1996?

7. What level of funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 can be transferred to 1997 without being lost?

8. What funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 will be lost to Austria?

9. What aid for 1997 has Austria so far applied for?

10. What aid for 1997 (for Austria) has so far been approved by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

Does the Commission know, for the 1996 budgetary year, the exact number of associations, NGOs and other bodies to receive subsidies from the Community budget?

Can it classify them in the budget by chapter or general heading?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1997)

At Parliament's request, the Commission is currently drawing up an exhaustive detailed report on all subsidies granted in 1996 from the appropriations of Budget Chapter A-30. The Honourable Member is therefore advised to consult this report which, as soon as it is complete, will be sent to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control.

Regarding the exact number of associations, non-governmental organisations or bodies in receipt of subsidies from other chapters in the Community budget, a classification as suggested by the Honourable Member will become available once specific budgetary coordination provisions are in place. These provisions are currently being studied. The Commission keeps Parliament's Committee on Budgets, particularly its secretariat, regularly informed of progress in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Cuts in Community funding for Italian agriculture

The Commission's decision to cut funding for Italian agriculture by LIT 324 billion to recover unpaid fines by the Italian Government for the 1995/96 marketing year not only severely penalizes Italian agriculture as a whole, but also casts doubts on the approach adopted by the Council Presidency, which had given assurances that it had negotiated a delay with the Community authorities for the final payment of the supplementary levy.

1. Will the Commission therefore say whether Italy had agreed to the final payment of the fines by the end of April or the beginning of May and, if so, why the Commission has not honoured the agreement?

2. Is it right to penalize agriculture as a whole for a problem involving a single sector?

3. Will the Commission indicate immediately which sectors will be affected by the LIT 324 billion cut?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products ((OJ L 57, 10.3.1993. )) requires Member States to take all necessary steps to ensure that the additional milk levy is paid within the time limit laid down, i.e. before 1 September each year. That Regulation also stipulates that if the levy is not paid within the time limit, the Commission is to reduce advance payments.

1. To take account of the financial and administrative difficulties of the Italian authorities, an agreement was reached between the Community and Italian authorities on 13 December 1996 to suspend the recovery of the amounts due until 31 January 1997. After that date the obligation to reduce advances under Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 would come into play. However, in order not to disrupt the rate of payments for expenditure in other sectors, the Commission planned to recover the amounts due in three instalments, the last of which is due at the beginning of May, by which time, following the steps taken by the Italian Government, all of the additional levy should have been received by the Italian authorities.

2. The legitimacy of this measure is derived from the rules in force, which provide explicitly for the recovery of amounts due from the Member State. It is up to the Member State concerned to take the necessary measures (Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy ((OJ L 94, 28.4.1970. ))) to ensure that operators in a sector comply with the rules so that the financial consequences do not burden other sectors.

3. The Commission does not believe that the reductions will have any influence on the rate of expenditure in other sectors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Activities of non-governmental organizations in Belarus

In view of the precarious food and health situation facing the population of the Republic of Belarus following the Chernobyl nuclear accident;

Whereas by Law No 1710/12 of 9 January 1997, the Government of Belarus practically closed the borders to any type of humanitarian convoy, introducing extremely strict rules on entry, supervision, storage and distribution of medical products and equipment and food supplies in Belarus;

Whereas every year NGOs organizing holidays for over 50 000 children from the contaminated Chernobyl area during the summer period in various EU Member States are finding it more difficult to carry out their work;

Does the Commission intend to bring pressure to bear on the Belarus authorities to ensure that measures are taken to facilitate and not to hinder humanitarian action in Belarus and prevent the political disruption in the country from affecting the population, which has already been hard-hit by the nuclear accident, and in particular children and innocent victims?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Community is fully aware of the limits imposed by the Belarussian government on the activities of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are regarded generally as potential sources of opposition, partly because several opposition leaders founded NGOs. As a consequence, such organisations receiving grants from foreign funders have been subject to inspections (NCSI, Children of Chernobyl), the Soros Foundation support has been hit hard, and NGOs bank accounts have been subject to tax. A new decree strongly limits public assemblies and meetings, and a recent Belarussian regulation on imports of goods impedes the normal transport of humanitarian aid into the country, putting further financial strain on local partner NGOs.

The Commission has already complained through the Belarus mission in Brussels. It is trying to assist the NGOs network in Belarus through funds coming mainly from two Tacis programmes, LIEN and Democracy. Pressure on the Belarussian government is exercised through delicate bilateral dialogue.