ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Permanent failure of Greek business consultants to win contracts under the PHARE and TACIS programmes

According to a letter of protest I have received from the Federation of Greek Business Consultants, Greek business consultants are being permanently and unjustifiably excluded from economic and technical studies under the PHARE and TACIS programmes. The most recent case involves their failure to win the contract for the 'Economic and Technical Study for the Development of Ports in Georgia', despite the fact that they had scrupulously respected the instructions given by the Community. The assessment which was conducted in a summary manner points to the existence of criteria which, even though they were not mentioned in the assessment procedure, subsequently emerged as very important (for instance, the proportion of man/months to be performed in Georgia); furthermore, the announcement contained the curious expression 'the assessment will not take into account experience acquired in the TACIS countries'. The whole selection method raises many questions regarding the transparency of the procedures. Will the Commission therefore say:

1. on what precise grounds the tenders submitted by the Greek business consultancies in respect of the above project were rejected by DG I?

2. Which consultancy or consultancies was or were eventually selected?

3. How many - and which - studies have been allocated to Greek companies within the framework of the TRACECA programme concerning transport from Central Europe to Central Asia and the revival of the Silk Route?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1997)

1. During the evaluation in question the same criteria were applied to all bidders and the standard rules of evaluation were followed scrupulously. The evaluation committee considered that for a number of reasons the proposal of the Greek company could not be considered sufficient. The company has the right to request the Commission to supply detailed information on the result of the tender, and the Commission would be happy to answer in writing.

2. The company Hamburg Port training institute was the successful bidder.

3. Within the framework of the Traceca programme, there have been contracted to Greek companies a feasibility study for a grain terminal in Poty (Bangkok facility) and the supervision of the construction of rail ferry terminals in Baku and Turkmenbashi.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2835/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: The EEC-CIH agreement on harbours in relation to the Hidrovia project

In a previous written question (E-1689/97) ((OJ C 391, 23.12.1997, p. 122. )) I asked the Commission for information on the agreement signed by the Commission and the Intergovernmental Committee on the Hidrovia (CIH), the contract signed by the Commission with the European company Roggemarine and the terms of reference of the study commissioned from this company.

The Commission informs me that the contract signed with the European company was signed on 20 December 1996, i.e. ten days after the Commission had signed the agreement with the Intergovernmental Committee on the Hidrovia (CIH).

I should like to know how the Commission was able to complete the call for tenders procedure (Article 113 of the Financial Regulation) in such a short time.

The Commission has also supplied me with some information regarding the environmental section of the contract signed with Roggemarine. We thank the Commission for this information, but would nevertheless like precise information about the terms of reference of the study or, preferably, the text itself.

Before signing an agreement on harbours for the Paraguai-Parana waterway, did the Commission carry out an assessment of the impact of the waterway on the environment and the region's sustainable development?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (29 September 1997)

The Commission adopted the decision to finance the project on 12 April 1996. It was then that it initiated the call for tenders procedure to select a company to implement the project; this procedure was carried out parallel to the procedures for signing the financing agreement.

The terms of reference of the study (of which the Honourable Member was informed in the Commission's answer to Written Question No E-1689/97) call for a methodology that takes account of all the environmental information available as well as a description of the project and the main forms of impact it may have. All aspects of the natural environment affected will be identified, as will any aspect that may generate an impact at any stage of the project's implementation. Identification and assessment of potential impact will be based on a critical analysis specifying, among other things, the nature and intensity of impact, the degree of correction needed, its synergetic action and its duration so that it can be appropriately categorised.

As to the third question, the fact is that the waterway already exists, even if its rate of use is very low compared to that of European rivers. The development of the ports will facilitate more modern, rational use of the waterway that takes better account of the ecosystem. The Commission studies, analyses and impact assessments preceding the new project are being carried out on that basis. The interim reports on the studies by the Inter-American Development Bank also confirm this point of view.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2568/97 by Glyn FORD to the Council. Asylum protocol



Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0060



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2568/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (28 July 1997) Subject: Asylum protocol Would the protocol which restricts EU citizen's access to apply for asylum in other EU countries, adopted at the Amsterdam Summit, be suspended if an internal conflict or a conflict between two states or more were to take place involving European Union countries? Joint answer to Written Questions E-2568/97 and E-2569/97 (7 November 1997) The Council considers it inappropriate at this stage to interpret the protocol in question, given that the Treaty of which the protocol forms part has not yet entered into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2933/97 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (5 September 1997)

Subject: Employment of children in the European Union

Can the Commission provide statistics for the number of children below the minimum school-leaving age employed part-time or full-time in the European Union, including the totals for each Member State?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1997)

The Commission does not have any statistics on the employment of children below the minimum school-leaving age. The labour force survey (the principal source of information on employment) does not include any questions about employment addressed to persons below the age of 15 or 16 (depending on the Member State).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2491/97 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (18 July 1997)

Subject: Non-payment of Socrates funds

The Commission intends to pay the beneficiaries 30% of the appropriations for Action 1 of the Socrates programme only on submission of the final report. This will involve considerable disadvantages for the universities taking part:

- Firstly, the announcement of how the funds are to be distributed is not made until after completion of the application phase, whereas with other EU aid programmes this information is made known before applications are made.

- Secondly, the breakdown in the allocation represents a clear departure from the practice in previous programmes.

- Holding back 30% of the grant until a period long after the end of the programme's financial year (30 June 1998) forces universities to engage in prefinancing into a third financial year. Since the final report will not be drawn up until 15 November 1998, the remaining funds are unlikely to be allocated before early 1999. However, the internal administrative expenditure on prefinancing the remaining appropriations will be out of all proportion to the size of the total sum. This is, in fact, an unnecessary and additional burden on the administrative bodies which already have far too much to do (offices in other countries, Socrates coordinators etc.), particularly as - thanks to the planned reduction - the Youth Technical Assistance Office in Brussels will scarcely be in a position to evaluate the final reports within an appropriate period of time and arrange for the final payments to be made.

1. Why does the new Socrates programme differ from its predecessors in terms of details of how aid is granted and the breakdown of money allocated?

2. Is the Commission aware of the serious disadvantages this will cause universities and the relevant administrative bodies and, if so, how does it intend to reduce this additional bureaucracy?

Answer given by Ms Cresson on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1997)

In order to meet the needs of universities wishing to have available the major part of their funding under action 1 of the Socrates programme from the beginning of the period for which the grant may be used, the Commission has modified the conditions for payment to be set out in the institutional contract. Grants of ECU 20 000 or less will be paid in a single, 100% instalment, and those of ECU 20 000 or more will be provided in two instalments, the first consisting of 90% upon the signing of the contract by the parties, and the second of 10% when the final report has been approved.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3287/97 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Transfrontier transmission of hard-core pornographic material across the European Union

In his response to my Written Question P-2792/96 ((OJ C 83, 14.3.1997, p. 68. )), the Commissioner stated that the Commission will be asking the United Kingdom to confirm the basis on which it considers that the 'Adult Channel', 'Fantasy Channel' and 'Playboy Channel', (which have been qualified by the UK authorities as 'soft pornography') do not infringe Article 22 of Directive 89/552/EEC ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23. )).

Has the Commission had any response from the UK, and if so, is it satisfied with the basis they put forward for claiming compliance by the aforementioned channels to Article 22?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The Commission did indeed contact the United Kingdom authorities on the matter raised by the Honourable Member. They explained that, unlike the non-British licensed channels (such as TV Erotica, Rendez-vous) against which proscription orders were made in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552/EEC, the programme content of the three British licensed channels mentioned is considered acceptable. Article 22 of the Directive bans the transmission of programmes 'likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors', except where it is ensured, 'by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts'. All three British channels are subscription channels, encrypted and broadcast late at night. They rarely contain explicit sexual or gratuitously violent material, and in respect of sexual acts in particular depict them quite differently from the treatment given to them in hard-core films shown on the proscribed channels.

Nevertheless the British authorities have assured the Commission that the Independent television commission is sensitive to the problematic nature of these channels, and regularly monitors them to ensure compliance with its programme code, conformity with which is a licence condition. The British authorities informed the Commission that there were only 11 complaints from viewers over the previous 12 months, usually when a cable company had experienced technical problems and one of these channels had broadcast accidentally 'in the clear'. All such complaints were immediately dealt with, and the technical fault rectified.

The Commission is therefore satisfied that the British licensed channels are carefully monitored, that their content does not include material which might 'seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors', which is not permitted under the Directive, and that the technical measures and broadcast time are sufficient to ensure their general unavailability to minors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2599/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Enlargement of the Union

Does the Commission agree that monies from the Structural Funds earmarked to assist Central and Eastern European countries towards accession to the European Union are now not so urgently required because of the results of the Amsterdam Treaty?

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

The success of enlargement to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will largely depend on the preparation of applicant countries during the pre-accession period. This effort will be mainly shouldered by the applicant countries, but technical and financial assistance from the Union will also be necessary. In its communication 'Agenda 2000', the Commission proposes a reinforced pre-accession strategy, linking in an overall approach the instruments of granting aid and the conduct of negotiations. The proposed pre-accession aid includes an annual amount of MECU 1000 from the heading 2 of the budget for the period 2000-2006. This aid is intended, in particular, to help bring the applicant countries' transport and environmental infrastructures up to Community standards, and to enable the countries concerned to become familiar with structural operations. Reflecting the fact that enlargement is an inclusive process, it will be granted to all applicant countries, irrespective of the date when each of them will be involved in negotiations.

The Commission's proposals included in 'Agenda 2000' take account of the results of the Intergovernmental conference. At the same time, it stresses that all the Community's policies must be developed and deepened in order to build a wider and stronger Europe. Above all, the institutions and their functioning must be deepened in good time, as foreseen by the Protocol annexed to the Treaty. The task to accomplish the necessary institutional reforms complicates the enlargement process, but does not necessarily delay it. Meanwhile, the enlargement timetable has a definite link with the success of the pre-accession effort. Hence, implementing the reinforced pre-accession strategy, including its structural aid element, is as urgent as ever.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3190/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Harmonization of film classification

Does the Commission have any plans to harmonize film classification across the Union given that certain companies on internal EU flights and ferries ignore film classification?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

Film classifications are first and foremost a matter for the Member States. Classification may vary according to the medium (cinema release, television films, videos, etc.). In the absence of specific instances which might constitute serious barriers to trade, no detailed examination is being carried out at European level at present into possible problems posed by such differences in classification.

However, in connection with the work being carried out into the protection of minors, especially in connection with the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services ((COM(96) 483 final. )), a study has been conducted into the protection of minors in all audiovisual and information services. As a follow-up to the Green Paper, and after consulting Parliament, the Commission is preparing a communication accompanied by a proposal for a recommendation aimed at strengthening cooperation between those concerned.

The question of the classification of content forms part of the overall problem of 'labelling of contents' and will be one of the areas in which cooperation will be developed. Future work is planned on the relationship between existing film classifications (for the cinema, television and video) and the labelling of content in the case of on-line services in the context of the protection of minors in audiovisual services in general. This work will lead to an examination of the question of classification at European level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2988/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: The Commission's report on European ports

During the European Parliament's consultations with the Commission and the Council on the trans-European transport networks, the Commission gave a positive undertaking to draw up and forward to Parliament in early 1997 a report on measures to develop European ports.

Has the Commission drawn up such a document and when will it be made available to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1997)

During the adoption of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, the Commission agreed to submit in 1997 a report and, if appropriate, a proposal for port projects using an approach similar to that followed for airports.

The Commission is currently preparing this report which it hopes to submit to the Parliament and the Council before the end of 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Legal protection of designs and models

In adopting the Medina report on the relevant directive the European Parliament cleverly mediated between the interests of the original manufacturers and those of third parties manufacturing non-original parts by proposing that the latter should pay fair and reasonable remuneration for the use of the original designs (Article 14).

The Council deleted Article 14 in its common position. Does the Commission not consider that his decision:

1. perpetuates protectionist policies which cancel out the benefits resulting from the existence of alternative markets?

2. upsets the rules of the internal market by creating 15 different closed and protected national markets, thereby playing into the hands of vehicle manufacturers who would have spare parts manufactured for them very cheaply in developing countries and then resell them at extremely high prices because they have a monopoly?

3. penalizes consumers, who would have to pay higher prices for spare parts and hence for repairs, which would result in higher insurance premiums?

4. will, for the above reasons, result in the closure of countless small firms which manufacture spare parts?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-891/97 by Mr Marset Campos ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 35. )) and E-1455/97 by Mr Stenmarck ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 36. )), in which it pointed out that the proposal for a Council and Parliament Directive on the legal protection of designs ((COM(96) 66. )) should strike the right balance between a high degree of protection for industrial and commercial property rights and adherence to the principle of fair competition in the internal market. This position, which is in line with Commission policy on employment, SMEs and consumer protection, was given practical expression in Article 14 ('repair clause'), which the Council decided to exclude from its common position.

Consequently, the Commission can share some of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member, particularly as regards the prospects for the spare parts market if a repair clause relating to the visible components of complex products does not appear in the final text of the Directive. This could upset the balance sought between the interests of car manufacturers, on the one hand, and spare-parts manufacturers, insurers and consumers, on the other.

The Commission would, however, like to see progress being achieved in this area as a whole, given the importance of the proposal for European industry and the European economy in general. It is, therefore, anxious that, following the second reading in Parliament, a compromise solution should be found which would rule out the possibility of the adoption of a much more prejudicial course of action, namely the abandonment or shelving of the entire proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Safety of steroid drugs

Is an investigation into the safety of steroid drugs to be carried out, and if so what is the likely timescale for the investigation?

If such an investigation goes ahead, will the Commission be calling for evidence from victims of side-effects from the drugs and if so, how will such evidence by called for?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2648/97 and E-2668/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1997)

Steroids have been available for decades. They are powerful medicaments that have proved their effectiveness in various therapeutic applications. However, in certain situations they may have serious undesirable effects. Therefore their prescription must follow the well known human-medicine principle of the balance between the advantage and risk deriving from the administration of a given medicament.

All those medicaments containing steroids currently on the market have been authorised by the Member States involved. They should, under the Community law in force, (a) acquire all of the information needed in order to monitor those medicaments and in particular that concerning any undesirable effects they may have on human beings and (b) assess that information at scientific level by linking it to the consumption of steroids and taking account of the - frequently-observed - cases of incorrect use and serious abuse of those medicaments.

Where, in the light of the pharmacological-monitoring information thus received a Member States feels that it should amend, suspend or withdraw the marketing authorisation for a medicament it is then required immediately to inform the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. In addition that Member State has the option, where it feels this to be justified, of laying the matter before the Agency before any decision is taken. So far neither of those two procedures has yet been initiated in the case of medicinal steroids.