ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3142/98

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Dangerous computer games

There is a computer game called "Carmageddon" which, I am appalled to say, many children enjoy playing. The game consists of a car rally in which points are scored by running over as many people and animals as possible along the circuit of the rally. The winner is the highest scorer and the number of points scored varies thus: 100 points for running over a fat man; 125 for a policeman or a little old lady; 150 for running over a cow or if one manages to drive into an American stadium and run over the players lined up in the middle of the field etc. Points can also be scored depending on the amount of time taken to do this. As far as the Member is aware, this computer game is banned in Germany.

In view of the public concern at the fact that European children could enjoy playing this horrible game, I would like to ask the Commission the following questions:

- Can the Commission say whether it is aware of this particular form of computer "entertainment"?

- Would it be possible for the "Carmageddon" computer game to be banned throughout the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

The Commission is aware, as a result of information disseminated by the media, of the existence of the computer game in question and the concerns it raises in respect of the possible effects on users, particularly children.

As regards the possibility of banning the game throughout the Community, the Commission must point out that the matter essentially comes under the Member States' responsibility for preventing violence and crime.

It would appear that the authorities in the Member States are carefully monitoring the problems posed by dangerous computer games, and in some cases action has already been taken to ban the game in question at national level, as mentioned by the Honourable Member. Certain Member States also have a classification system for computer games based on their level of violence, and ban their sale to minors on the basis of age criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Programmes and projects in the field of social policy in Catalonia

Bearing in mind the policy of transparency pursued by the Commission in relation to its spending, can the Commission say what projects implemented in Catalonia benefitted from each type of aid available in the area of social policy for the period 1994-99?

Can the Commission further specify what amounts were finally allocated to each of the above projects?

Answer given by Mr Flynn On behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Objective 2 of the European Social Fund (ESF) covers areas seriously affected by industrial decline. The total amount allocated to Catalonia under this Objective during the period 1994-1999 is [fmxeuro]263 662 237.

Objective 3 combats long-term unemployment, facilitates the integration into working life of young people and of persons at risk of exclusion from the labour market, and promotes equal opportunities for men and women. The total amount allocated to Catalonia under this Objective during the period 1994-1999 is [fmxeuro]403 782 193.

Objective 4 helps workers adapt to industrial changes and to changes in production systems. The total amount allocated to Catalonia under this Objective during the period 1994-1999 is [fmxeuro]133 801 800.

Objective 5b covers the development and structural adjustment of rural areas. The total amount allocated to Catalonia under this Objective during the period 1994-1999 is [fmxeuro]23 850 154.

The total amount allocated for all Objectives during the period 1994-1999 is [fmxeuro]825 096 384.

Details of the ESF programmes for Catalonia (1994/1999):

>TABLE>

For further details about the European Social Fund in Catalonia, the Honourable Member may contact Joseph Ma. Puig I Vidal, Cap de Servei de Planificació I Ocupacional, Sepùlveda, 148-150, E-08011 Barcelona, tel. + 34 93 228 57 57, fax + 34 93 228 57 38. For projects funded under other budget lines in the social policy area, information by region is not available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Unfair allocation of banana import licences

In its proposal for a regulation implementing the new organisation of the market in bananas, which is due to enter into force on 1 January 1999, does the Commission intend to continue with the unfair arrangements for allocating banana import licences?

Under the current, unfair arrangements, the big multinationals have a monopoly over primary imports which gives them control of virtually the entire banana market, whereas the EU's own importers receive almost no import licences and so have to buy the bananas off the big American companies at excessive prices.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

In accordance with the Council¢s wishes, licences will be allocated on the basis of past activity. Import rights will thus be given to operators who have actually imported bananas during a specified reference period.

None the less, the Commission plans to increase considerably the percentage of licences reserved for µnewcomers¢, which should help small operators in particular to enter the market in banana imports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3824/98

by Outi Ojala (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Right of diplomats to purchase duty-free goods

Pursuant to a Commission decision, the sale of duty-free goods will cease on European internal routes from 1 July 1999, but diplomats, and EU Commissioners who are given the same treatment, will continue to be able to purchase duty-free goods thanks to their annual duty-free purchase quota.

1. Does the Commission consider it right that highly-paid diplomats should be the very ones to retain their right to make duty-free purchases when ordinary EU citizens are to lose that right?

2. Does the Commission propose to take any action to rectify this state of affairs and if so, what? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3878/98 by Mr De Coene(1).

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 35.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4037/98

by Wilfried Telkämper (V) to the Council

(11 January 1999)

Subject: Risks posed by EDF's nuclear power station at Fessenheim on the Upper Rhine in Alsace

On 11 December 1998 the second generating unit of the Fessenheim nuclear power station had to be shut down because of deformation of a flexible metal bellows in the cooling system. The first unit was shut down in August 1998 for the same reason.

What information does the Council have of the nature, extent and impact of the incident at the Fessenheim power station and does it see a need for an inspection of the power station and the security system by an independent expert institution to provide the public in Switzerland, Germany and France with adequate protection against any risk?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The Community provisions in force provide neither for notification of the Council nor for intervention on its part as regards the incidents referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Council can only share the concern for adequate protection of the public and would point out in this connection that Directive 96/29/Euratom(1), by laying down strengthened standards for the protection of the health of the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, is an important factor here.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.
(98/C 386/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/98
by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission
(2 April 1998)
Subject: Flouting of Community legislation in the contracting procedure for the Cispadana road project
Following Commissioner Bjerregaards reply to my Written Question (E-3972/97) (1) concerning the Cispadana
road project, I should like to inform the Commission that the stage of the contracting procedure at which thebidders submit their documentation was completed on 27 February 1998 but that this procedure was not carriedout by the Italian authorities (Ministry of Public Works and ANAS) in accordance with the provisions of
Directive 93/37/EEC (
2).
Has the Commission received the information requested from the Italian authorities and what conclusion has it
reached?
Does the Commission consider that, following the latest developments in this case, there are grounds for bringing
Italy before the Court of Justice for failing to meet its obligations under the Treaty, pursuant to Article 169?
(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 44.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.
Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(5 June 1998)
The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will
inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
(98/C 386/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1018/98
by Rolf Berend (PPE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)
Subject: Funding of Weimars reign as European City of Culture in 1999
In 1999, Weimar in Thuringia will be the European City of Culture. To date, the City of Culture scheme has been
financed through the Kaleidoscope programme. Weimar will be an exception in that the Kaleidoscope
programme finishes in December 1998. It is uncertain how Weimars reign as European City of Culture willbe funded. The City of Weimar and the Land of Thuringia need clarification of the financing arrangements soon.
Will Weimars reign as European City of Culture be financed as part of a pilot project and, if so, how, and how
much funding will be allocated? Or is it planned in this case to extend the Kaleidoscope programme on a one-off
basis?
When can a final decision be expected?
Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission
(14 May 1998)
Without prejudice to the decisions which will eventually be taken on this matter by the Community institutions
and the budgetary authority in particular, the Commission is able to confirm that it is planning to continue in 1999the financial support traditionally granted by the Community to the European City of Culture project.
As regards the basis on which this grant will be paid, the Commission is proposing to use the preparatory stage of
the framework programme on culture, currently in preparation within the Commission and scheduled to go before
Parliament and the Council in May 1998.11.12.98 EN C 386/71 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Merseyside's new image

In the context of a new round of Objective 1 measures to benefit Merseyside, does the Commission agree that the issue of Merseyside's image must be properly addressed?

Is the Commission willing to highlight the fact that, contrary to traditional popular perceptions:

- Merseyside has the lowest crime rate of any Metropolitan County in Britain, including the lowest rate of burglary offences, the lowest level of vehicle crime and one of the lowest levels of violent crime;

- productivity per worker on Merseyside is 12 % higher than the UK national average;

- unemployment fell by 21,6 % in 1996 and 1997;

- the number of people on Merseyside with vocational qualifications of NVQ level 3 is 10 % higher than in the UK as a whole;

- 29 % of Merseyside's GDP is derived from the science/technology sector - the highest proportion in the UK;

- the business start-up rate on Merseyside is, jointly with London, the highest in the UK;

- Liverpool has more business web sites than any other European city;

- Liverpool is the most advanced city in the UK regarding cable television;

- the Port of Liverpool is currently recording its highest tonnage level ever;

- Merseyside has the lowest rate of fatal road accidents in the UK (which is itself the lowest of any EU Member State);

- the pollution load on the River Mersey has fallen by 80 % in 25 years?

Does the Commission intend to help publicise these facts?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3907/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Stock records at olive mills

Article 9(1)(d) of the new Regulation on the application of production aid for olive oil stipulates that the quantities of oil purchased must be included in the stock records kept by olive mills for checking purposes, so as to prevent the declaration of higher production than the amount actually produced; nevertheless, no provision is made for the possible purchase of olive residue.

Given that all production of olive oil involves the corresponding production of residue and there is no ban on such purchases, should possible purchases of olive residue by mills be subject to the same checks on stocks and quantities entering the mill?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Mutual recognition of organic product labelling

Further to my question to the Commission (P-0979/98)(1) and its answer concerning the mutual recognition of organic product labelling in the Community, will the Commission explain in greater detail how it in actual fact endeavours to ensure that trade in organic products can take place without dual inspection and in accordance with the internal market?

Does it believe it is reasonable that certain Member States or regions should place such great emphasis on a series of supplementary requirements that a producer who has already obtained national approval must secure an additional approval, which is even subject to civil law in the relevant Member State, in order to be granted authorisation to export to the country/region in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs(2) provides that Member States shall set up an inspection system operated by one or more designated inspection authorities or by inspection bodies, which are authorised and supervised.

Member States shall also ensure that an operator who complies with the provisions of this Regulation and pays his contribution to inspection expenses has access to the inspection system. In this way access to the market is ensured also for farmers who do not follow the supplementary requirements set by private marks.

In addition, Member States may not, on grounds relating to the method of production, to the labelling or to the presentation of that method, prohibit or restrict the marketing of organic products which satisfy the production and inspection requirements in the Regulation.

Authorities in Member States or regions may not impose additional requirements to those in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (organic crop products and foodstuffs essentially composed of organic crop products). The Commission has no indications that such requirements would be imposed as a condition to bring products covered by Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 on the market.

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 101.

(2) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3716/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Council

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Counterfeiting and piracy

On 22 October 1998 the Commission announced the publication of a Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market, with which it launched wide-ranging consultations on the matter with interested parties in the Member States.

The Green Paper pursues four lines of thought: (a) support for monitoring activities by the private sector; (b) the legal protection of authenticating and security devices; (c) an assessment of the sanctions and other means capable of ensuring that intellectual property rights are enforced; and (d) the establishment of appropriate administrative cooperation between the Member States' competent authorities.

Will the Council specify what rules the EU has at its disposal to inspect goods for their authenticity at its external borders?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

On 25 January 1999 the Council adopted Council Regulation No 241/1999(1) amending Regulation (EC) 3295/94 of 22 December 1994(2) laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods. That Regulation is the act on which controls on entering and leaving the customs territory of the European Community concerning counterfeit and pirated goods are based.

The purpose of Council Regulation No 241/1999, on which the Parliament delivered its Opinion on 17 June 1998(3), is to extend the scope of Regulation No 3295/94 to encompass patents and the Community trade mark.

(1) OJ L 27, 2.2.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 341, 31.12.1994, p. 8.

(3) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 123.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4003/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 1999)

Subject: External debt and countries affected by hurricane Mitch

Which EU countries have cancelled their share of the external debt of the Central American countries affected by hurricane Mitch?

What attitude has been adopted by the world's financial institutions (in particular IMF) as regards cancelling or relieving the debt of the countries concerned?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

From the onset, the international community responded rapidly, in material terms, to the needs generated by the impact of hurricane Mitch. Moreover, it indicated quickly its readiness to alleviate the debt situation of the countries hit by the hurricane.

All members of the Paris Club that are creditor countries (this includes most Community Member States, with the exception of Greece, Ireland(1), Luxembourg and Portugal) agreed to place a three-year moratorium on the servicing of Nicaragua's and Honduras' bilateral public debt. Furthermore, although the Commission does not have full official information, a number of Community Member States (including Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom), as well as other donors such as Brazil and Cuba, have announced their intention to waive either repayment of the principal or to suspend debt service payments from the region. Terms and conditions vary as in some cases the waiving is partial and in other cases is in full. Whilst the waiving is permanent in some cases, in others it is temporary, that is, until the four countries have recovered from their current predicament and are in a better condition to face their international obligations.

The international financial institutions (IFIs) most active in the region, namely the World Bank, the International monetary fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank, are cooperating to find ways of decreasing the debt burden. In particular, they have set up a trust fund with which to finance the service of these countries' multilateral debt. Some Community Member States are contributing to this trust fund. Further, these IFIs have pledged to undertake with the governments of Honduras and Nicaragua a comprehensive assessment of their external debt situation and requirements for debt relief in the context of the debt initiative for heavily indebted countries (HIPC). Finally, these institutions are increasing and accelerating their financial support to these countries.

(1) Ireland belongs to the Paris Club but is not a creditor country in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3772/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Complaints by undertakings about the single market

Although the single market has been in place for the past six years, European undertakings, whose activities should have been made easier, are still confronted with the constraint of additional expenses incurred in bringing their products or services into line with the various national specifications and of test and approval or even authorisation procedures.

Does the Commission consider it acceptable for such objective obstacles to the development of the business community's commercial operations still to be in place today, and can it explain what it is doing about the Member States at which the complaints of economic operators about barriers to free movement are aimed?

Does the Commission have the necessary means and authority to force a Member State that infringes the legal provisions of the unified single market to abide strictly by the rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, attends to the application of the provisions concerning the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. These provisions do, moreover, have direct effect and can therefore be invoked by private individuals before domestic courts.

The vast majority of obstacles to the completion of the internal market have been removed, either through harmonisation or by application of the principle of mutual recognition. In addition, the Community possesses an instrument aimed at preventing the appearance of new barriers to trade, in the form of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(1), which codifies the notification procedure laid down by Council Directive 83/189/EEC(2) in the field of technical standards and regulations.

The Commission is, nevertheless, aware that difficulties do still remain in a number of harmonised and unharmonised sectors. In this connection, and as part of its "Action plan for the single market", the Commission intends to adopt a communication in 1999 which will propose specific actions to remedy the problems.

All complaints from economic operators regarding obstacles to free movement are, at any rate, carefully examined by the Commission. If it considers that the facts or regulations exposed therein might constitute an infringement of Community law, the Commission can open an infringement procedure against the Member State concerned, which may, if necessary, lead to an action being brought before the Court of Justice. The Commission can also open such a procedure on its own initiative if, and by whatever means, it identifies an infringement of Community provisions.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3713/98

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Underground placement of the railway line running through Cadiz (Spain)

Will the Commission confirm whether or not it has received an official request, on the basis of the possibilities afforded by existing legislation, for funding for the underground placement of the railway line running through Cadiz, given the various reports to this effect circulating in Cadiz (Spain)?

In any event, should a request of this kind be made through the Spanish Government? Has this indeed been the case?

Should such a request have been made, would it be feasible for the Commission to accept it, and if so, in what form and at what cost?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

In 1998, the Community provided financing of 0,5 million euro, under budget heading (B5-700 (TEN)-transport, for design studies on rail integration in the urban area and the doubling of tracks in the city of Cadiz.

The studies will be finished later in 1999. However, with regard to the specific project to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission has received no request from the Spanish authorities for Community co-financing under either TENS or the European regional development fund, or the Cohesion fund.

Until such time as the Spanish authorities submit a request, the Commission cannot make any assessment of potential Community funding.