ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2811/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Salary of the President of the ECB

According to press reports neither the President of the ECB, Mr Duisenberg, nor the other ECB staff know what their salaries will be.

1. Will the Commission state the precise salaries of ECB staff?

2. If not, what are the reasons for withholding this information from EU citizens and for breaching the principle of transparency?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1998)

Under the Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (ECB), the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the Executive Board, in particular their salaries, pensions and other social security benefits, are to be the subject of contracts with the ECB. They are to be fixed by the Governing Council on a proposal from a committee comprising three members appointed by the Governing Council and three members appointed by the Council. The members of the Executive Board do not have the right to vote on these matters (Article 11.3. of the Statute). Regarding ECB staff, their conditions of employment, in particular their salaries, pensions and other social security benefits, are to be laid down by the Governing Council, on a proposal from the Executive Board (Article 36.1.).

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the salaries of ECB staff and of members of the Executive Board since it has no power to fix their terms and conditions of employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: State aid

The Italian Massa-based "Clad la Sartoria" cooperative, which was set up before 31 December 1996, has applied for funding under Law 49/85 (the Marcora Law). Commission DG IV has challenged the law in question, which has been deemed to constitute State aid. In November 1997 the Italian Government drew up a Decree amending Law 49/85 in the light of the comments by the Community officials. However, the DG responsible has not yet issued its definitive opinion, and the measures to protect jobs have consequently been stalled in the short term.

Will the Commission and the departments concerned take steps as quickly as possible to ensure that the opinion on the above Decree is finally published?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, at its meeting on 15 July 1998, it decided not to raise any objection to the new aid scheme provided for in the Decree amending Law 49/85.

Measures under the previous Law 49/85 scheme which had been held over and on which the Commission received updated information in June will be covered by a single decision at a later date.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/98

by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Payments for intervention storage

What level of payments are made by the Commission to Member States for in situ intervention storage of cereals? In addition, what additional payments are made for handling cereals entering and leaving intervention stores?

What correlation is there between payments made in Member States and the rates set by the EU? Can the Commission publish the rates of payment made in Member States?

Does the Commission consider that different payments rates for storage across the EU distort competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

The intervention storage costs of cereals are reimbursed to the Member States on the basis of standard amounts fixed from time to time by Commission decision. The standard amounts applicable for the 1998 financial year are ECU 1,76 per ton entry costs(1), ECU 1,71 per ton removal costs with tolerance(2) (ECU 1,98 per ton without tolerance) and ECU 1,11 per ton per month storage costs.

The method of calculation of these standard amounts, which are applied across the Community, is laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) 1643/89 of 12 June 1989 defining the standard amounts to be used for financing material operations arising from the public storage of agricultural products(3) and is based on the weighted average of the real costs communicated by the four least expensive Member States, provided that those Member States hold at least 33 % of the quantities of the product in question. The Commission does not have a policy of publishing the real rates communicated to it for the purpose of this calculation.

Since the Commission pays a uniform rate throughout the Community, the suggestion that different payment rates for storage across the Community distort competition is not relevant. Although the real rates applicable from one Member State to another may vary, this is a reflection of the market conditions in each Member State.

(1) If no physical movement of product takes place, the standard amount is reduced by ECU 0,72 per ton.

(2) Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) 3597/90 of 12 December 1990 on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the buying-in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention agencies, OJ L 350, 14.12.1990.

(3) OJ L 162, 13.6.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2922/98

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Subject: Serious irregularities during tests for EC competitions

During open competition COM/A/8/9/10/11/12/98 for administrators and assistant administrators held at the Hotel Ergife, Rome on 14 September 1998 there occurred a case of bad organisation and management in the fourth and last (language) test, the box containing the test papers having been mislaid.

Apart from this incomprehensible carelessness, at the end of the third test, when it was discovered that the test papers were missing the candidates remained in the examination room with the form on which the answers were to be written without any supervision by the invigilators, so that a series of irregularities occurred such as comparison of answers, the use of cell telephones to ask for outside help, and other irregularities.

In view of this, does the Commission think that the competition can be considered valid from the point of view of transparency, aptitude of the candidates and proper organisation of the tests?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Protection of cultural monuments of Kosovo

Large numbers of Orthodox and Muslim monuments in Kosovo are under serious threat of destruction as a result of the armed hostilities in the region. Since the EU regards the protection of the cultural heritage of all peoples as a matter of prime importance and works in close cooperation with Unesco and other international organizations to that end, will the Commission say what initiatives it will take to have the monuments of the region of Kosovo classified as part of the world cultural heritage and protected accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the threat to the cultural heritage monuments in Kosovo due to the armed conflict.

The Commission has no competence to classify cultural heritage monuments in the world heritage list. This is the exclusive responsibility of the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation (Unesco) and as the Honourable Member is aware, such an initiative has to be undertaken by the authorities of the country in question through the diplomatic procedures established by Unesco.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry in Greece

The EU's imposition of acreage quotas on tobacco-growing in Greece has reduced tobacco production and the level of employment in the industry, which had already been cut by advances in technology. The effect of this has been to put workers' expectations of retirement under threat since, through reducing the number of days of insurance contributions and increasing the inordinate number of years of contributions required (now 40), it is possible that they may not be able to retire on a pension.

As provision was made for specific measures to safeguard workers' insurance rights, and having regard to Articles 10 and 25 of the charter of workers' fundamental social rights, will the Commission say whether it will take specific measures to protect the social security rights of workers in the tobacco industry?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

In the field of social protection, Member States are free to decide their own policies as regards the organisation and operation of social security systems, provided they comply with Community legislation on equal treatment for men and women.

This means that Member States may adopt rules fixing the number of years of insurance contributions needed to qualify for an old-age or retirement pension.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2334/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland

Can the Commission provide figures giving details of payments from the Structural Funds by region in Ireland over the last three years and is the Commission convinced that, given the economic differences between the regions in Ireland, a reasonable share-out has taken place?

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

(10 September 1998)

It should be recalled that Ireland is considered to be a single region for the purposes of cohesion policy. There is a single Community support framework administered at central government level. However, the Commission has in recent years encouraged more regional involvement in the disbursement of the structural funds in Ireland. This is evidenced by the establishment, in 1994, of the eight regional authorities. Arising from this development, regional statistics are being refined and additional statistics developed to better assess the level of development of the eight regions. One useful statistic emerging from this process is the level of structural funds spending in the individual regions. Reliable statistical data for 1994 and 1995 are now available and are reproduced below.

Table of total expenditure (including national matching funds)

>TABLE>

The forecast regional spread of expenditure over the whole of the current 1994-1999 structural funds programming period is shown below.

Table of expenditure by region (1994-1999)

>TABLE>

The Commission considers that this regional allocation is reasonable, taking account inter alia of the fact that transport and telecommunications infrastructure improvements in one region also bring benefits to other regions. Account should also be taken of the interventions of the cohesion fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Phosphorous pollution from detergents

Detergents are a major source of phosphorous in waste water. Such pollution has resulted in a legal ban on phosphorous in detergents in Italy and Switzerland and voluntary agreements with the detergent industry in other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This has resulted, for example, in a 94 % reduction in the amount of phosphorous in detergents in Germany since 1975. Such measures have resulted in significant reductions in the input of phosphorous from detergents into the aquatic environment in the countries where action has been taken.

No such action has been taken in Ireland, resulting in significant aquatic pollution from this source. Does the Commission agree that standardisation is necessary to bring Ireland into line with the good practice which is widespread across much of the rest of the EU and that this standardisation could come in the form of a Europe-wide voluntary agreement with industry, as in Germany and the Netherlands, or a ban as in Italy?

As a first step, does the Commission agree that phosphorous-free detergents should be VAT-exempted in the EU to reduce the price deterrent currently in place which prevents consumers from buying phosphorous-free products?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

The Commission is currently examining the issues raised by phosphates in detergents. Controls on marketing, whether legislative or voluntary, exist in some Member States and vary from one to another. The general attitude toward phosphates in detergents has been evolving in favour of phosphates. Many circles favour phosphates over other alternative detergent builders providing that wastewater treatment is adequate, since phosphates can be readily removed from wastewater thus making them less of an environmental problem than their substitutes.

Council Directive 91/271 EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment(1) provides that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment(2) and has established a schedule for the compliance of agglomerations of different sizes up to 31 December 2005. Furthermore, special provisions, mainly the requirement for nitrogen and phosphorous removal, have been established for areas susceptible to eutrophication. However, not all Member States have wastewater treatment systems in place.

The Commission is in the process of assessing the need for harmonization of the marketing of phosphates throughout the Community. No decision on harmonisation has been taken yet, and in the absence of harmonisation, the Commission has not considered fiscal incentives.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) "secondary treatment" means treatment of urban waste water by a process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other process in which the requirements established in Table 1 of Annex I of the directive are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/98

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Use of support funds in Italy

Is it correct that in 1991, 1992 and 1993 European support funds were granted for the renovation of old farmhouses with the aim of creating holiday homes near to Umbertide in Umbria, Italy?

If so, is it correct that these European support funds for the renovation of the farmhouses or holiday homes amounted to about ITL 6 billion?

If so, is it correct that these houses were never rented and are now in exactly the same condition as before?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

The operational programme of the region of Umbria for the development of rural areas under Objective 5(b) for the period 1991-93 provides for, inter alia, the part-financing of investments aimed at renovating, for tourist purposes, buildings of particular cultural value which have deteriorated owing to their non-utilisation.

The implementation of the programme is the responsibility of the region of Umbria. According to the information provided by the region three projects of the above-mentioned type were part-financed in the commune of Umbertide under the Objective 5(b) programme during the period 1991-93 for a total public contribution of 379 million lire, 50 % of which was from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

The regional authority carried out, for the three projects, an on-the-spot check of the completion of the work and its correctness. The granting of aid was strictly conditional on the building being used for tourist activity for 10 years, under pain of financing being withdrawn. Within the framework of partnership, the Commission will invite the region of Umbria to check compliance with this condition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Infringement of European law by the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular through Article 60 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO)

1. Does Article 60, paragraph 7 of the Strassenverkehrszulassungsordnung (StVZO) (Regulation on the entry into service of motor vehicles) infringe the legal provisions of the European Union on the type and composition of registration numbers and their supports?

Article 60, paragraph 7 prohibits the attachment to the supports of registration numbers of any type of device which could give rise to confusion with official registration numbers or which could impair the effect of these numbers.

2. If not, is the Commission planning a harmonization of the provisions on the supports for registration numbers in the foreseeable future?

3. Will the Commission also create the possibility of making use of additional advertising space on the supports, for which there is at present no legal provision in the Federal Republic of Germany? A certain amount of scope could create some 2 500 jobs in Germany.

4. What format might this specific provision on the advertising space have?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission considers that Article 60, paragraph 7, of the German StVZO does not conflict with the type approval requirements for the place and format of registration plates as laid down in Council Directive 70/222/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers(1).

The Commission does not intend to propose a change of the type approval legislation on this matter.

(1) OJ L 76, 6.4.1970.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2672/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Assessment of transposition of the acquis communautaire in the applicant countries

A British Home Office Minister has stated that the third pillar acquis has already been listed in detail in anticipation of enlargement. The lists in question are to be used to gauge the progress of the accession negotiations and transposition of the acquis. A common assessment procedure has been laid down for that purpose, and an expert working party of Member State representatives set up to monitor the transposition.

1. What is the basis and underlying criteria of the assessment procedure?

2. Will the public be able to keep track of the assessment procedure? What specific form does the procedure take?

3. For whom will the expert working party draw up its assessments, and will the public be allowed to inspect them?

4. Who represents Austria in the expert working party?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

1. The basis of the assessment procedure is the Joint Action establishing a mechanism for collective evaluation of the enactment, application and effective implementation by the applicant countries of the acquis of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs(1) approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council at its meeting on 28 and 29 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the Permanent Representatives Committee set up the expert group referred to in Article 2 of that Joint Action. The first meeting of this Collective Evaluation Working Group took place in Brussels, on 30 September 1998. Since then country-by-country evaluations have been carried out on a regular basis.

2. The evaluation procedure involves analysing information relating to the effective implementation by the candidate countries of the acquis of the Union. The information examined by the Evaluation Working Group is essentially based on Member States' experience of working with the candidate countries, on the reports from Commission delegations in these countries and the information available to the Commission within the framework of the overall process of accession (including reports concerning the PHARE programme) together with reports from the Council of Europe or from any other source deemed to be relevant. The Commission should take account of the evaluations in its proposals for significant adjustment of the priorities and objectives of the accession partnerships.

3. The Collective Evaluation Working Group will report to the Council on the progress and results of the evaluations through Coreper and in close cooperation with the K.4 Committee and with the other Council bodies involved in the enlargement process.

4. It is the responsibility of each Member State to designate its representative to the Group.

(1) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3001/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Status of public banks

The Commission is currently engaged in an investigation of the status of public-law banks which receive State guarantees. It was called upon in the Amsterdam Treaty to do so, and is complying with this instruction.

1. Can the Commission say at this stage when the results of the investigation can be expected?

2. In how many, and which, Member States has the Commission encountered unjustified advantages arising from State guarantees, and how does it intend to proceed further?

3. Against the background of its investigations to date, how does the Commission view the "Declaration by Luxembourg and Austria on credit institutions"?

4. Does the declaration have any concrete effect on Austria's situation?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

1. The Commission has completed the examination and adopted the report on 17 June 1998. It aims to present the report to the Ecofin Council at its meeting on 23 November 1998.

2. The report deals with the question of which services within the banking sector are regarded by the Member States as "services of general economic interest" pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty and to what extent compensation facilities are granted for their procurement. The report does not address in particular the compatibility with the EC Treaty of state guarantees in favour of certain banks.

3. The declaration of Austria and Luxembourg holds that the same rules of assessment which apply to "services of general economic interest" of public law credit institutions in Germany are also applicable to comparable Austrian and Luxembourg institutions.

4. A declaration of the Council or a Member State cannot alter the EC Treaty or its applicability in particular Member States. Therefore, possible facilities for compensation for the fulfilment of "services of general economic interest" have to be appraised under the provisions of Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2079/98

by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

We have heard that there are problems regarding the continuity of the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives, which develops alternatives to tests on animals. We are convinced that the ECVAM carries out valuable work.

1. Is it true that the Director of the ECVAM, Mr Balls, was appointed for only two years rather than the customary five?

2. Is this situation jeopardizing the survival and efficient operation of the Centre?

3. Does the Commission agree that the ECVAM has done important work and must be able to continue it?