ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0938/98 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission (16 March 1998)

Subject: Relaunching of Med-Urbs, Med-Campus and Med-Media Programmes

Repeated assurances have been given by the Commission that the Med Programmes are about to be re-launched, according to the last communication I received from the Commission 'early in 1998'. Some organisations, such as the London Borough of Islington in my constituency, had projects approved in 1995 and have invested considerable resources in maintaining the relevant networks underpinning them, so that they could be re-activated when the Programmes were re-launched. Can the Commission give any clear indication of when this will happen?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

On 17 July 1997 ((PE 260.948/103. )) the Parliament adopted a resolution based on a report presented in the budgetary control commission by Mr Fabra Vallès. In this resolution, Parliament requested the Commission to present, within six months, a report on the measures taken to remedy the deficiencies affecting the management and implementation of the Mediterranean decentralised cooperation programmes as highlighted in the special report (1/96) of the Court of auditors. The resolution also requested the Commission to submit to the Parliament the new measures it intended to put in place for the relaunch of these programmes in 1998.

This report, transmitted to the Parliament in January 1998, responds in the view of the Commission to the recommendations formulated by the Parliament in its resolution. Parliament has acknowledged it through its commission of budgetary control.

The Commission is now prepared, during the second quarter of this year, to relaunch the three Mediterranean decentralised cooperation programmes. The relaunch, taking into account the new measures which have been adopted, will address in the first place those projects which were already earmarked following the 1995 call for proposals for these three programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1254/98 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: Twinning arrangements with towns in the CEECs

What progress has been made with the twinning arrangements between the European Union and certain municipalities in the countries of central and eastern Europe?

Can the Commission give details of the activities that have taken place under the twinning programmes and the countries most involved?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (8 June 1998)

Since 1991, the Commission supports twinning not only with towns in the Community but also with towns in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The number of twinning arrangements which have been made since then is given in the table below. Each time the most important partner countries are listed.

>TABLE>

It is not possible to give details of activities at these meetings between citizens, as they involve widely different groups (young people, adults, professionals) and vary enormously in themes. They range from cultural and sporting events to meetings organised to exchange experiences in the fields of training, administration, the economy and the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Use of experts to evaluate structural fund bids and performance

Could the Commission list the number of external experts it recruited in 1997 to advise on applications for and evaluations of structural fund programmes and break down this total by nationality and gender? What proportion of these experts received formal training on the EU's requirements concerning structural fund programmes prior to undertaking this work? What was the total cost of their work in 1997? Which recruitment measures did the Commission use to ensure openness, transparency and non-discrimination?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)

The Commission does not have data on the nationality of the consultants it uses because the nationality of tenderers and contractors is not relevant to the awarding of contracts. It also does not have data on the gender of the staff employed by the various consultancies.

The Commission starts from the premise that the experts selected by public procurement procedure have the appropriate knowledge for the work assigned to them. As part of its programme to develop a culture of evaluation and of promoting good practice, the Commission has already organised three conferences attended by both experts in evaluation and public servants responsible for this type of issue.

On the question of openness and transparency, it will be clear from the rules and regulations that apply that the Commission in general uses open tendering procedures, for which notices are published in the Official Journal.

Regarding non-discrimination, it goes without saying that the Commission - regardless of the procedure followed - has to comply with the basic rules in Community law.

The Commission has sent Parliament its evaluation report for 1997 and its work programme for 1998, together with an estimate of the cost of these evaluations. With regard to regional policy and the evaluation exercises launched by the Commission, this was about ECU 4.5 million in 1997 and the forecast for 1998 is of about ECU 2.5 million, including work on developing methodologies. With regard to rural development, expenditure in 1997 was about ECU 450 000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/98 by Stéphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Aid to shipbuilding

The US authorities have announced their intention of reopening the Philadelphia Navy Yard with the aid of massive subsidies, in flagrant breach of the OECD agreement which contains a standstill clause on aid. The Commission regarded this provision as being sufficiently binding not to have raised the aid ceilings for shipbuilding in Europe.

Does the Commission intend to apply restrictions in Europe, on the basis of an OECD agreement rejected by the French National Assembly, which its trading partners are not themselves applying?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The so-called standstill clause to which the Honourable Member refers is not part of the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) agreement itself, which has not yet entered into force, but part of the final act of the negotiations concluding that agreement. According to its provisions, the parties agreed not to increase existing subsidy levels or to introduce new measures of support pending entry into force of the agreement. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the apparent breach of these arrangements by the United States. The Commission has written to the American authorities and asked for further explanations and details on the content of the arrangements and their conformity with the standstill clause.

So far as the Community's aid policy is concerned, the Commission does not intend to apply the provisions of the agreement (which prohibits all subsidies except social aids linked to closures and aid for research and development) until such time as the agreement enters into force. The rules of the shipbuilding aid Directive 90/684/EEC (as prolonged by Council Regulation (EC) No 2600/97 of 19 December 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 3094/95 on aid to shipbuilding ((OJ L 351, 23.12.1997. ))) continue to apply until 31 December 1998. The Commission has also put forward proposals ((COM(97) 469 final. )) for a successor regime should the OECD agreement still have not entered into force. These provide for operating aid to continue until 31 December 2000, when the focus would shift to other forms of support providing a greater incentive effect for yards to improve their competitiveness. The other aids allowed would be closure and restructuring aids; regional investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing installations; aids for innovation; aid for research and development; and aid for environmental protection.

As for the operating aid ceiling, this has remained at 9% since 1993 despite the fact that the aim of the directive is a progressive reduction in the aid level. The majority of Member State have not shown any readiness to agree to an increase in the ceiling. Moreover this would not only be incompatible with the OECD standstill arrangements, to which the Council has reaffirmed its attachment, but would also be inconsistent with the thrust of the Commission's proposals for a new regime.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2040/98

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Remscheid, North Rhine-Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Remscheid in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:

1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Remscheid from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or - as direct allocations - universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98(1).

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1942/98 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (11 June 1998)

Subject: Infringement of Community regulations on environmental protection when creating a wind farm in Alto Sannio

A wind farm comprising some 600 turbines is being created in the area of Alto Sannio (province of Benevento, Italy). Although the area is scheduled for reforestation and the European Community has already allocated funds for the conservation of the countryside and nature and the creation of a mountain tourist area, the Campania region has taken advantage of other Community contributions to construct some power lines, some underground and some above ground, to supply electricity to the ENEL network. There is reason to believe that the wind farm has been planned in direct defiance of European directives on the protection, regeneration and exploitation of the region from the point of view of the countryside, environment, history and archaeology. The dangerous consequences of the undertaking are visible: rocks uprooted, springs destroyed, millions of cubic metres of rubble scattered on mountain tops, excavation work in areas that are naturally prone to subsidence. Moreover, no arrangements were made to consult the public as expressly provided for in Council Directive No 85/337 ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) of 27 June 1985.

1. Is the granting of Community funds for incompatible projects in the same area not an enormous waste of resources?

2. Is the creation of this farm, albeit with the laudable intention of creating a source of alternative and renewable energy, not the result of a thoughtless regional policy that could cause irreversible ecological damage with all sorts of serious consequences for woodlands, fauna and forests?

3. Are there not grounds for initiating infringement proceedings against Italy for failure to implement and comply with Community directives on environmental and regional protection?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1022/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Structural Funds and the outermost regions

The text of the new Treaty on European Union - the Treaty of Amsterdam - refers to the concept of the outermost regions. An analysis of Agenda 2000 and the information available on the new Structural Fund regulations shows that this provision of the Treaty has not been taken into account in the texts proposed by the Commission.

This being the case, can the Commission say what specific approach it will take to the outermost regions, in particular the Azores, and whether, with the prospect of the Regis initiative coming to an end, it does not take the view that the treatment of the outermost regions in the proposed regulations is insufficient and incomplete?

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

(23 April 1998)

The new Article 227(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Agenda 2000(1) and the Commission proposals on the new Structural Funds regulations all pay close, and indeed specific, attention to the most remote regions by bringing them under the new Objective 1.

The Commission plans to integrate the measures hitherto carried out under Regis I and II into the programming for Objective 1 in order to promote thematic concentration, simplify management and administration and increase their effectiveness.

As proposed in Article 19 of the new General Regulation on the Structural Funds(2), in order to continue to promote cohesion and make the future Community initiatives more visible and more innovative, the Commission plans to concentrate on only three topics of common interest: cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation, rural development and human resources in the context of equal opportunities.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.

(2) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Agricultural grants for greyhound breeding

Will the Commission confirm that no agricultural grants allow for greyhound breeding in Ireland to be subsidized?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1998)

As part of the Community policy for rural development the Commission has encouraged Member States to provide aid for the diversification of agricultural production towards non-food products.

In the case of Ireland Community aid was available to farmers and other rural dwellers to diversify into greyhound breeding under the operational programme for agriculture, rural development and forestry 1994-1999. An amount of Ir

870 000 of public expenditure was provided for schemes to improve breed quality and for marketing and promotion.

No claims have been made on Community funding and it has been decided to agree to withdraw the measures from the operational programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0823/98

by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: European model health certificate for exports of dry poultry manure

Intra-Community trade in dry, unprocessed poultry manure is in effect obstructed by the absence of certificates describing the veterinary aspects of the manure. The annex to Commission Decision 96/103/EC(1) of 25 January 1996 announces that the Commission will draw up a model health certificate. Two years have elapsed and there is still no draft European model. One Member state, Germany, has taken the initiative in drawing up a health certificate for trade in dry unprocessed poultry manure.

1. Is the Commission aware of the German health certificate for exports of dry poultry manure?

2. Does the German health certificate have any legal validity?

3. Would the Commission appreciate it if other Member States were to draw up their own health certificates?

4. Would the Commission be prepared to adopt the German health certificate as a basis for its own model?

5. How long would it take the Commission to present its own model health certificate for exports of dry poultry manure on the basis of the German health certificate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1998)

In the light of past experience with trade in manure, the Commission adopted Decision 96/103/EC of 25 January 1996 amending Chapter 14 of Annex I to Council Directive 92/118/EEC laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC;(2) the Decision provides for a health certificate to be introduced, the model for which is to be drawn up by the Commission after it has consulted the Standing Veterinary Committee.

The Commission is not aware of a certificate drawn up by the Member States, but will find out whether one exists and - if so - whether it complies with Community law.

The Commission cannot give a precise time-scale for presenting a draft health certificate for trade in processed poultry manure, owing to current priorities in other areas of veterinary and zootechnical legislation.

(1) OJ L 24, 31.1.1996, p. 28.

(2) OJ L 24, 31.1.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Ramsgate Ferry Tragedy: failure of Swedish companies to pay fine

In September 1994, a walkway between a dock at Ramsgate ferry terminal and a ship waiting to depart suddenly collapsed; 6 passengers were killed and 7 others injured. The Swedish companies who manufactured the walkway, FEAB and FKAB, were subsequently found guilty in British courts, who imposed a fine of £1 million for negligence.

These Swedish firms have failed to pay this fine. The companies have recently stated on British television that they have no intention of paying it. They claim that, because the incident occurred before Sweden joined the EU, they are not bound by Community law.

Will the Commission join me in condemning these Swedish firms, FEAB and FKAB, for showing no respect for British law or for the victims of the diaster or their families? Will the Commissioner further join me in calling on the companies to pay the fine in full and apologize for their behaviour to date?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 1998)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1904/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. The EU and the Helms-Burton Act



Official Journal C 386 , 11/12/1998 P. 0165



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (16 June 1998) Subject: The EU and the Helms-Burton Act In the recent EU-US negotiations on the extraterritorial effects of the Helms-Burton Act, was an agreement reached concerning a full derogation from the US extraterritorial legislation, or does the agreement refer only to a temporary exemption for the EU from the effects of the laws concerned?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1660/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Costs of the parliamentary system

Sector IV of the German Bundestag's research service produced a document which calculated "the costs of the parliamentary system of the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany" on 24 February 1998 under the reference number WF IV - 4/98.

Is the Commission aware of this document?

Does the Commission consider that the conclusions reached are accurate?

Is the Commission able to compare the costs of the parliamentary systems in the Member States of the Union and the costs of the parliamentary system of the European Union itself, in the case of the latter both with and without inclusion of the language services, for the figures available from 1993 onwards for the relevant financial years?

If so, what is the outcome of this comparison?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/98

by Dominique Souchet (I-EDN) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: Prohibition on the use of driftnets

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, a Commission expert body, has acknowledged both the aptness of the methods chosen and the quality of the results of the study carried out in 1993 by Ifremer (Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer - French Oceanographic Institute) on the environmental impact of driftnets in the Atlantic.

In its conclusions, it merely notes that driftnet fishing requires "close monitoring".

Since 1993 net length has been limited to 2.5 km, the number of boats using this fishing gear has been reduced and net technology has improved, so that it is certain that the mortality rate has greatly diminished.

In view of these developments, does the Council believe that it is reasonable to accept the Commission's proposal to abolish the use of driftnets in the Atlantic (outside coastal waters)?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1178/98

by Luisa Todini (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Compensation for the "Bright" variety of tobacco between Umbria and Veneto (1997 marketing year)

In Italy more than 75 % of the "Bright" variety of tobacco is produced in Umbria and Veneto. The 1997 crop in Veneto was some 4 000 tonnes below average because of serious virus diseases, whereas in Umbria there was a considerable quantitative increase of a top quality product.

Considering the 1995 precedent sanctioned by Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) 1066/95(1) the agricultural policies ministry has requested that the end-of-year compensation for all varieties of tobacco be made permanent under the regulation in compliance with the nationally guaranteed quantitative limit.

Does the Commission consider it possible to authorize such compensation given that it would mean that the excess tobacco produced in Umbria would not have to be sold off or destroyed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1998)

The Commission is not in favour of the type of compensation called for by the Honourable Member. It believes that to grant such compensation would undermine the principle of the individual quota which is one of the bases of the common organisation of the market (COM) in tobacco. Furthermore, such compensation would do nothing to solve the problem of under-production in Veneto.

Implementation of such compensation would be likely to encourage producers to systematically produce more than their quota, leading them to believe believe that their over-production may always, after compensation, be eligible for the premium. Since the 1997 harvest is over, it is very difficult to check the source of tobacco receiving compensation.

(1) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 5.