ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/99

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Excessive use of European Structural Fund resources for road construction in the five new Länder and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the Federal Republic of Germany)

The Federal German Government has decided that the substantial sum of DM 3,4 billion of ERDF resources is to be spent on basic infrastructure from the Structural Funds for the new Länder, two thirds of this amount being earmarked for long-distance road transport and only one third for rail transport.

This is inconsistent with the following principles adopted for the Structural Funds and considered essential by the European Parliament:

- the goal of harmoniously balanced and sustainable development;

- the goal of increasing employment;

- the goal of protecting and improving the environment;

- the required balance among the various means of transport;

- the required consideration of local transport systems, and especially citizens' networks;

- the required change to sustainable forms of transport to ensure compliance with the pledge to the community to reduce propellant gas emissions;

- the partnership principle, which involves the local and regional authorities and the social and environmental partners in the decision-making on programming;

- the principle of additionality, whereby the Structural Funds must not be misused to plug holes in national budgets.

1. Does the Commission believe that a development plan with these emerging shortcomings can be approved for the Objective 1 area in Germany?

2. If not, what delays can be expected in overall planning in the Objective 1 area?

3. What does the Commission think of the substantial proportion of new basic infrastructure building projects when the interim evaluation for the Land of Brandenburg refers to quantitatively satisfactory provision of roads and railway lines and, in contrast to this, a sharp decline in employment?

4. How does the Commission rate compliance with the European principles when ERDF resources are used for road construction projects that entail massive interference in a natural environment that is worth protecting and for projects to which the population concerned is strongly opposed?

5. What practical steps will the Commission be taking to ensure that the Federal Government complies with the principles governing the Structural Fund regulation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

The Commission is not currently able to comment on the issues raised by the Honourable Member because the German plan for the next Objective 1 programming period (2000-2006) has not yet been submitted.

The Commission will answer the questions raised as soon as it receives and examines the plan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1863/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Parity of qualifications within the European Union

Is the Commission aware that Barcelona University is demanding from a British student who already has a degree from a British University 156 credits over and above those demanded from Spanish students?

Does the Commission not feel that this is in breach of European law which does not allow discrimination on the grounds of nationality between citizens of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1999)

The information supplied by the Honourable Member does not allow for a thorough examination of the situation. The Commission has specified in a fax to the Honourable Member what details are needed. As soon as the information becomes available, the Commission will look into this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Discrimination against immigrants in Luxembourg as regards entitlement to social aid

Immigrant workers from other Member States living in Luxembourg suffer discrimination when they apply for social aid. In order to be eligible for aid, they have to submit a declaration of capital assets held in their country of origin, and the decision to grant the aid depends on the content of that declaration.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Does it not believe the behaviour of the Luxembourg authorities to be contrary to the principle of equal treatment? What will it do to resolve the problem?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission presumes that the Honourable Member is referring to Luxembourg legislation concerning the right to a guaranteed minimum income in the context of the fight against social exclusion in Luxembourg.

The regulations applying in Luxembourg make the granting of this benefit dependent on a person's financial resources, which includes the value of any property irrespective of whether this is situated in Luxembourg or abroad.

The Commission considers that, in view of the judgment of the Court of Justice(1), no discrimination on the basis of nationality is taking place. This judgment states that Articles 7 and 48 of the Treaty(2) mldr do not prohibit though they do not require the treatment by the institutions of Member States of corresponding facts occurring in another Member State as equivalent to facts which, if they occur on the national territory, constitute a ground for the loss or suspension of the right to cash benefits.

(1) In connection with a similar case, see the Court of Justice judgment of 28 June 1978 in Case 1/78 Kenny [1978] ECR 1489.

(2) Now Articles 12 and 39 respectively as a result of amendments to the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Ariane programme

In the 15 October issue of the weekly information bulletin for local and regional authorities entitled Europa Regioni, it was reported that the 291 projects which are to receive EU financial assistance under the 1999 Ariane programme have now been selected.

Can the Commission publish a list of all the public and private bodies, firms, businesses, private citizens and organisations in countries both within and outside the European Union that have been deemed eligible for such assistance, together with the amounts allocated in each case?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1904/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: URBAN (1996-1999)

The total amount allocated to Italy from the Community's structural funds for the URBAN Community initiative on urban areas for the period 1996-1999 is ECU 298,4 million (equal to approx. LIT 580 billion).

Will the Commission state what agencies (public or private), institutions, companies, cooperatives and individuals have been allocated funding under URBAN (specifying whether payments have already been made) and how much each of them has been granted?

Has it checked how the amounts have actually been used and whether the proposed measures have been successfully implemented?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

For the current programming period 1994-99, the Community contribution planned for the Urban Community initiative in Italy amounts to 136,7 million, including 120,4 million from the European Regional Development Fund and 13,3 million from the European Social Fund.

According to the relevant legislation, the Commission disburses the assistance granted under Urban direct to the national authorities responsible for the operational programmes and their implementation. Detailed information concerning the final beneficiaries may be obtained from the Italian Ministry of Public Works.

The monitoring committees, which are composed of representatives of the Commission and of the Ministries and regions concerned, see to it that the programmes are properly executed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Agricultural statistics concerning funding flows in the agricultural and rural development sectors

The European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture recently drew attention to the lack of transparency in relation to the destination and exact amount of the funds allocated by the European Union in the individual Member States. Clear information on the subject could be provided from time to time by unambiguous and up-to-date statistics, which should be made available to the public as promptly as possible.

Would the Commission state, therefore:

- whether data and statistics of this kind are currently available?

- if so, where they are published at regular intervals?

- whether the Commission does not intend, otherwise, to introduce harmonised statistics and demonstrate whether these influxes of funds have a genuine impact on rural areas; in short, to embark on a general improvement of agricultural statistics?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

Two summary tables are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, one showing the trend of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) expenditure by Member State for both the Guarantee and Guidance Sections, and the other giving a breakdown by chapter and Member State of EAGGF Guarantee expenditure charged against the 1998 budget.

The first table is extracted from the Report on the Agricultural Situation in the European Union and the second from the EAGGF Guarantee Section Financial Report. These are published by the Commission every year and are also available to the public on the Commission's Europa site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgo6/index.htm).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Sanctions imposed on Burma

In the light of continuing repression and discrimination practised by the military regime in Burma, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that sanctions imposed against them are enforced?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

The Commission fully supports the continued and consistent application of the Union common position with regard to Burma/Myanmar, given the continued human rights abuses taking place in the country.

The common position adopted in October 1996 re-affirmed the then existing measures relating to the expulsion of military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of Burma/Myanmar in Member States and the withdrawal of military attachés for diplomatic representations in the country, an embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment, and the suspension of non-humanitarian aid and bilateral assistance for development programmes. It introduced a ban on entry visas for senior members of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) senior members of the military or security forces, and their families, as well as the suspension of high-level bilateral visits by ministers and government officials.

The common position was reinforced in October 1998 by extending the ban on visas to include transit visas and by applying it to Burmese authorities in the tourism sector. The Council decided on 11 October 1999 to renew of the common position for six months.

In addition, an enquiry conducted in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 3281/4 of 15 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalised tariff preferences (1995 to 1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countrie(1), confirmed that the authorities in Burma/Myanmar had routinely used forced labour, not only for military operations, but also for civilian and military infrastructure projects. The Commission recommended the removal of Burma-Myanmar from access to tariff preferences granted by the Regulation. The Council Regulation applying this recommendation came into effect in May 1997 and remains in force.

(1) OJ L 348, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Control of Internet use in Tunisia

Tunisia ranks amongst the countries in which Internet access is subject to the strictest control and censorship, the aim being to avoid the propagation of subversive ideas and to protect state security. Such control takes the form of a state monopoly on access, checks on providers, the compulsory registration of users, and the screening and monitoring of electronic mail. As a result, Tunisian citizens seeking to exercise freedom of information and expression find themselves faced with extremely severe legal action.

Does the Commission not consider that such practices by the authorities in Tunis run counter to the spirit and the letter of the Association Agreement between Tunisia and the European Union?

What measures have been or will be taken by the Commission to induce Tunisia to abolish the state monopoly on Internet access and to eliminate firewall screening, checks on providers, the compulsory registration of users and the monitoring of electronic mail?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

The Commission is aware of the extent to which the Tunisian authorities control use of the Internet.

All applications to subscribe to the Internet pass through the Tunisian Internet agency (ATI) which also acts as a server for the Government and some diplomatic missions. There are two private companies (Planet Tunisie and Global Tunisie) authorised as servers for private subscribers. Other institutional servers exist in several areas of the public sector (education, research institutes, etc.). The number of Internet

connections in Tunisia remains low (less than the world average) in spite of the authorities' efforts to promote its use in education and business. Nevertheless, Tunisia has recognised the importance of the Internet to its business sector and for the competitiveness of its economy. User charges have recently fallen considerably.

The Association Agreement between the Community and Tunisia does not contain any specific provision on free access to the media; however, Article 2 states in general that human rights, which include the right to inform and be informed, are an essential part of the Agreement. The Commission follows the Tunisian human rights issue closely, including the citizen's right of access to the media and the Internet, notably through the regular reports on the human rights situation drawn up by the Member State and Commission heads of mission in Tunisia and through the ongoing political dialogue with the Tunisian authorities.

Tunisia is also invited to participate in regional programmes in the MEDA framework in order to promote a new regional approach to telecommunications and the information society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Iran Aid

Iran Aid is a UK charity established in 1983 that provides humanitarian relief to oppressed or destitute people in Iran, particularly orphaned children, from any ethnic, religious or political background and with priority being given to the children of persons executed by the regime as mohareb or dissidents. Most recently, they have been cared for within Iran itself. This kind of assistance contravenes a fatwa (religious edict) and puts those who do so into the category of mohareb, with the concomitant penalties. For this reason, Iran Aid's operative network, along with the identities and location of the beneficiaries, must remain secret. Over the years, many volunteers have been imprisoned, tortured and even killed in the course of their work for the organisation.

Since May 1998, Iran Aid has been placed under investigation because of allegations of links with a terrorist organisation, its activities have been suspended and all the documents belonging to the Charity have been seized. The senior officials of the charity fear that the most sensitive files contained details of the beneficiaries will become public and known to the Iranian government. According to reports in the media and from activists working for the charity, the Iranian Security Service and police have already discovered the names of some of the volunteers inside Iran, and a ferocious campaign of repression has recently been launched.

What information can the Council give concerning this case?

Answer

(24 January 2000)

Iran Aid is currently under investigation by the UK Charity Commission. The Council does not make statements about ongoing investigations in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/99

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Dual nationality

The problem of illegal labour, particularly in the European building industry, is growing in scale.

The European trade union movement has recently reported an increasing number of cases in which Polish workers in the building industry in Germany and Denmark, for example, hold dual both Polish and fictitious German nationality.

Is the Commission aware of this problem and are there initiatives in the pipeline that may alter this untenable situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any problems caused by fictitious dual nationality of workers in the construction industry.

In any case, as the issue of acquiring the nationality of a Member State comes in principle within the remit of the Member State in question, it is up to the authorities in that country to monitor and verify whether the workers employed within its territory have the nationality of that territory or that of a third country.

Moreover, in so far as the Honourable Member's question refers to situations involving the posting of workers for the transnational provision of services, it may be useful to recall the objectives of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services(1). This Directive aims to ensure fair competition between the undertakings providing the services, while at the same time guaranteeing adequate protection for the posted workers. With regard to its scope, it must be emphasised that this Directive applies to undertakings which post workers to another Member State without distinguishing between Community and non-Community workers.

Within the sectoral dialogue committee on construction, the social partners in the European construction industry, the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers and the European Construction Industry Federation have discussed the problem of illegal work over recent years. Neither in these discussions nor in other contacts with the social partners has the Commission been made aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Marijuana

Recent research into drugs to combat obesity and reduce appetite has concentrated on a new series of products derived from marijuana. Recent studies on such products have confirmed that they have the effect of suppressing appetite but emphasised their dangerous side-effects, which are far from negligible.

Scientists have considerable reservations about using marijuana, particularly as the consumption of this substance by children between the ages of 12 and 15 can arrest the development of the brain, with disastrous consequences for a series of functions such as memory, learning and motor cooordination.

Would the Commission, therefore, approach the institutes of pharmacological research with a view to regulating the use of marijuana in pharmacological experiments?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

Community pharmaceutical legislation regulates the placing on the market of medicinal products and the requirements for obtaining marketing authorisations, based on an assessment of the quality, safety and efficacy of the product.

Community pharmaceutical legislation also regulates to a certain extent the conduct of clinical trials. A draft directive on good clinical practice has been proposed(1) and is currently being discussed in Council which has as its main aim the harmonisation of general conditions and requirements under which clinical trials are authorised and conducted. Neither the existing pharmaceutical legislation nor the draft directive regulate or propose to regulate which substances may be tested in clinical trials because, as a matter of principle, any substance could have a positive impact in curing certain diseases and a case by case evaluation must be made by the authorities with regard to any clinical trial proposed.

(1) COM(97) 369 final modified by COM(1999) 193 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2132/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: The situation in Saudi Arabia

International organisations and the reports adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1998/44, paragraphs 19 and 21; E/CN.4/1998/43, paragraphs 13 and 405; E/CN.4/1998/68, paragraphs 89 and 92) have provided substantial information indicating a very serious situation with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms in Saudi Arabia.

The UN Commission on Human Rights has condemned the use of arbitrary detention, torture, forced or involuntary disappearances, and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions by the Saudi authorities (for example, those executed in 1997 included over 70 foreign nationals and the death penalty is carried out even against people who were minors at the time they committed the offence). The authorities in Riyadh routinely exercise very heavy repression against political opponents (total ban on political parties) and religious minorities and subject the press to total control. Arrests for expressing certain views are increasing. Amputation as a punishment is still widely practised.

What is the Commission's position on the situation in Saudi Arabia?

What action has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to make the Saudi authorities show at least minimum respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia does indeed give cause for concern. There is no specific agreement between the Community and Saudi Arabia which would provide the framework for direct exchange of views and dialogue. A regular political dialogue has been established between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries within the context of the Union's cooperation agreement with the GCC countries, which include the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.

At a meeting of regional directors between the Community and the GCC in Riyadh in mid-October 1999, the whole range of political and social matters were discussed, including human rights. In this forum, in particular the questions of womens' and childrens' rights, the death penalty, and human rights in general were discussed.