ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0648/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 February 1998)

Subject: Abolition of co-responsibility levy for olive oil

The olive oil market in Greece is in a state of crisis. Excess production in the European Union has led to a 27% reduction of Community aid for production, and there has been a spectacular fall in market prices owing to the surpluses.

Given the importance of olive oil production for Greece, will the Commission abolish the co-responsibility levy for Greece for this year, so that Greek olive oil producers are not penalized because of the approximate tripling of Spanish production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

The Commission is following closely developments on the Community market for olive oil, and has already taken measures to relieve the market in the form of private storage aid for olive oil.

The Commission cannot depart from the rules laid down in Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats ((OJ 172, 30.9.1966. )). This Regulation is a Council Regulation. The Commission cannot therefore abolish the effects of the stabiliser mechanism on production aid for Greece for this year.

The Honourable Member's attention is however drawn to the fact that, in the event of an overrun of the maximum guaranteed quantity, it is production aid to producers exceeding 500 kilograms of olive oil per marketing year ('large-scale' producers) that is cut. According to the information in the Commission's possession, only about 25% of olive growers in Greece will be affected by this reduction.

Finally, it should be noted that during the 1994/95 and 1995/96 marketing years, Spanish olive growers were subject to the stabiliser when Spain was affected by a serious drought and production fell to record lows.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/98 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

In principle - unless special rules laid down by the Member States provide otherwise - the directive prohibits the use of a tobacco brand name for other products.

1. Does this ban apply only to the advertising of non-tobacco products bearing this name or to the naming itself?

2. The Member States are to be permitted to lay down special rules only if the tobacco brand name has previously been used for other products in 'good faith'. To what must this 'good faith' relate?

3. If a Member State failed to take advantage of the possibility of laying down special rules, would the ban apply to the continued use of a name which had hitherto been legally used for a non-tobacco product and which was also a tobacco brand name? (Example: Would the health resort of St Moritz no longer be permitted to advertise its products and services under its own name even though it has nothing to do with the brand of cigarettes of the same name?)

4. At any event, the 'same name' of the non-tobacco product may not be used except in a 'manner clearly distinct' from that used to advertise the tobacco product. Does this mean that the brand name as such must be changed for the non-tobacco product? How will it be ensured that differences in the application of this provision by the Member States do not lead to new trade barriers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0856/98, E-0857/98, E-0858/98, E-0859/98, E-0860/98, E-0861/98 and E-0862/98 (13/14 July 1998)

As the Honourable Member is aware, following a detailed debate in second reading on 13 May 1998, the European Parliament approved the Council's common position on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products without making any amendments to it. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

With particular reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, it should be emphasized that, when discussing the Commission proposal, the Council took great pains to produce a text which took into account both the efficient operation of the internal market and the requirements of ensuring a high level of health protection.

The reasoning which guided the Council's work on the proposal for a Directive was explained in detail in the recitals and in the statement of reasons which were sent to the European Parliament before its second reading. It will be for the Member States to adopt appropriate provisions to ensure that the Directive is so implemented as to enable the desired objectives to be attained.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to ensure application of the measures adopted by the Institutions pursuant to the Treaty and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them and to ensure that they comply with the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0945/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Nicaragua's foreign debt

In Nicaragua's budget for 1997, servicing foreign debt accounted for 11.2% of GDP, while the international cooperation funds received amounted to 8% of GDP.

The annual burden posed by servicing and repaying debt represents a substantial percentage of the amount gained through exports, which places a constraint on Nicaragua's opportunities for development.

Foreign debt currently stands at $6108.5 million, 66.9% of which corresponds to bilateral debt.

How is the Commission cooperating with Nicaragua with a view to cancelling the balance and servicing of Nicaragua's foreign debt, which would make it possible to lay the foundations for sustainable development in that country?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

The Community as such has no jurisdiction over the matter of debt raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission cannot therefore take direct action to relieve the principal or servicing of Nicaragua's external debt. The Commission is nevertheless of the opinion that the debt burden borne by that highly impoverished Central American country is excessive.

The Commission is of the same view as the Honourable Member: the percentage of its foreign-exchange income that Nicaragua must use to service its debt annually is far too high. In that context, extensive cooperation by the Community in a great variety of fields no doubt has a consistent macroeconomic effect, in that it contributes to balancing the general economic situation of the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0158/98 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Olive oil production

As the information given by the Greek authorities is not clear, would the Commission provide me with information concerning the production of olive oil in Greece and the other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1998)

The olive oil production estimates provided by the Member States are disputed and the Commission has asked the Court of Auditors to examine the matter. The production entitled to aid according to the Member States' figures is given in the table below.

The quantity for which aid is granted to producers whose average olive oil production per marketing year is less than 500 kg is calculated as a lump sum on the basis of the number of trees and of the average yield in that production area over the previous four marketing years.

(in Tonnes)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1349/98 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (PPE) to the Council (23 April 1998)

Subject: Convention on animal experimentation

In 1986, on legal advice, the Council agreed that Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes would be limited to the use of animals in product development and safety testing.

The Council of Europe's Convention (ETS 123) on the other hand, provides for protecting animals for all experimental purposes and the accession of the Community to this Convention is long overdue.

Would the Council explain why discussions on this matter have taken so long and can the Parliament be assured that there will be a successful conclusion during the UK Presidency?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

The Council is pleased to announce that it adopted the Decision concluding the Convention mentioned by the Honourable Member on 23 March 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/98 by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Abolition of border controls and derogations

How should Article 14 and Article 62 be construed in relation to each other and how does the Schengen Agreement's timetable for abolishing border controls take effect in relation to Articles 14 and 62?

What is the difference between the Danish derogation and the UK and Irish derogation from Article 14?

Does Denmark also have derogations from the provision concerning the abolition of border controls?

Does the derogation from Article 14 also apply to the Kingdom of Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 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 No. 1330/98 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Council. Forthcoming EU-ACP ministerial meeting in Barbados?



Official Journal C 323 , 21/10/1998 P. 0126



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/98 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (28 April 1998) Subject: Forthcoming EU-ACP ministerial meeting in Barbados? Would the Council please indicate how many misters of Member State governments will be attending the joint EU-ACP ministerial meeting in Barbados? Answer (6 July 1998) Six Member States were represented at ministerial level at the 23rd meeting of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers in Barbados on 7 and 8 May 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0142/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Support for coastal fishing

Small-scale and coastal fishing accounts for the largest part of the fishing industry and employment in Greece.

Harsh working conditions combined with the problems of employment in the industry brought about by the common fisheries policy, the basic objective of which is to cut back fishing to protect fish stocks in the Mediterranean, have left Greek fishermen in a precarious financial position.

Since 1 January 1998, the Greek Government has defined workers in the fishing industry, on the basis of a Community directive, as self-employed, whereas they were previously grouped in the same category as farmers. The manner in which they are taxed has been changed and measures imposed which are impossible to carry out in practice, leading to justifiable protests by fishermen owing to the additional problems this situation has created in their industry.

The EU regards support for small-scale coastal fishing and the island regions as a priority and the proposals for new arrangements for the fishing industry recognize the need for additional support measures for the coastal communities which are dependent on that type of fishing. Would the Commission, therefore, say what measures it will take to prevent coastal fishermen being subjected to regulations that will worsen their already poor economic and social position and to provide more support for their industry?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission is aware of the importance of small-scale coastal fishing in Greece where it provides a large number of jobs, on the islands in particular. The Commission is also anxious to secure the future of fishing, and is aware that this depends on the availability of resources. To help attain these objectives, this sector may benefit from a wide range of structural aid under the 'fisheries' operational programmes and the 'PESCA' Community Initiative (1994-1999). Special measures have also been adopted recently for small-scale coastal fishing; these focus in particular on the modernisation of the Aegean islands' fleet and on training fishermen in this region.

With respect to the tax system for coastal fishing, under Article 25 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )), in conjunction with Annex A, the special VAT scheme for farmers applies to freshwater fishery undertakings but not to coastal fishing ventures or deep-sea fisheries, which are therefore subject to normal VAT arrangements. The Commission has to ensure the uniform application of Community law in the Member States and this is why it has asked the Greek Government to subject coastal fishing to the normal VAT arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0595/98 by Reimer Böge (PPE), Niels Kofoed (ELDR) and Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: MGP IV - calculation of tonnage

According to reports in the Danish press, the procedure determining tonnage under MGP IV resulted in considerable advantages accruing to the Netherlands fisheries as a result of the changeover from GRT (gross registered tonnage) to GT (gross tonnage). It is claimed that the Netherlands received a 'bonus' of some 53 000 gross tonnes in this way.

Can the Commission confirm that the tonnage conversion of the Netherlands fleet was properly carried out?

Can the Commission provide figures for the individual Member States to refute the above assertions?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The increase in the tonnage objectives for 1996 mentioned by the Honourable Members is not due to the conversion from gross registered tonnage (GRT) to gross tonnage (GT) but due to a reassessment of the historical fleet capacity in GRT.

The calculation of the objectives for the fleets of all Member States in successive multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGPs) followed precise rules based on the actual situation of the fleet in 1983 or at the time of accession. A reassessment of the historical capacity of the fleet can therefore lead, as in this case, to a revision of the MAGP objectives. It does not represent a 'gift' for the Dutch fleet.

The need to revise the tonnage objectives for the Dutch fleet was known when the MAGP III ((OJ L 166, 15.7.1995. )) was adopted. This is illustrated by the ad-hoc formula that was used to calculate the objectives shown in the MAGP III Decision. As described in the annual report to the Council and the Parliament on the results of the MAGP III ((COM(97) 352 final. )), revised figures supplied by the Dutch authorities indicated that the global objectives for 31 December 1996 should have been 98 891 GRT rather than the 75 670 GRT previously supposed.

The Commission has not, however, accepted these data unconditionally. A series of missions is planned to verify them and to ensure that the historical data in the fleet register are fully corroborated. Indeed, it is stated in MAGP IV Decision ((OJ L 39, 12.2.1998. )) that the tonnage objectives for 31 December 1996 for the Dutch fleet are subject to verification.

Changes to the objectives for 1996 were made for a number of other Member States. The justification for each case is described in the annual report to the Council and the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1256/98 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Council (15 April 1998)

Subject: Tobacco products

In Article 6(3) of the common position of the Council on the proposal for a Directive on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, it is proposed that Member States should be permitted to continue to authorise sponsorship of 'events or activities organised at world level' until 1 October 2006 at the latest.

Can the Council confirm the interpretation that this formulation applies only to the activities of the International Automobile Federation? If not, to what other activities or events does it apply?

Is not this formulation liable to lead to cases being brought before the Court of Justice on the grounds of possible discriminatory application?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1090/98 and P-1256/98 (6 July 1998)

1. As the Honourable Members will be aware, on 13 May 1998, after detailed discussion, the European Parliament approved on second reading the Council's common position on the European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

2. The reasoning that guided the Council in the proceedings that led to the adoption of its common position were stated in detail in the recitals and in the statement of the Council's reasons sent to the European Parliament before the second reading. The Council believes that this common position poses no problems regarding civil liberties and that it complies fully with the principles of subsidiarity and conditionality.

3. Finally, the Council would remind the Honourable Members that it is for the Commission to ensure that the measures taken by the institutions under the Treaty are applied and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: European articles of association

The recent call by the Commission for proposals to promote the development of international youth organizations has once again highlighted the need for a set of European articles of association to govern associations extending beyond the territory of a Member State.

The growing interdependence of organizations which maintain multiple cooperative links beyond the purely commercial sector in different Member States, calls for a legal framework in the European Union in order that such organizations may develop their activities safe in the knowledge that precise regulations exist.

Can the Commission say whether it considers it necessary for such European articles of association to be adopted at a European level in order to facilitate cooperation between individuals, organizations and bodies from different Member States and to provide the necessary regulatory framework for their activities?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that in order to facilitate cooperation between organisations that wish to operate at European level through a non-profit body, it has already submitted to the Council a draft regulation on the statute for a European association ((OJ C 99, 21.4.1992. )).

The draft, which was proposed in 1992, was amended in 1993 ((OJ C 236, 31.8.1993. )) following the opinions of the Parliament and the Economic and social committee, but has not so far been adopted by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0472/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Negotiating period for SPDs in the new structural fund programming period 1999-2006

Does the Commission accept that an unacceptable cause of delayed starts for structural fund programmes during 1994-99 was the lengthy period of negotiations under some programmes and with some Member States for approval of SPDs? Will the Commission provide a league table of the average time in respect of each Member State during the programming periods between the Commission's publication of its draft SPD and final agreement with the Member States concerned? What measures does the Commission propose to tackle this problem in the new period 1999-2006? Could this include a target date for completion with a fixed mechanism for arbitration if agreement is not reached in that period?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The considerable volume of financial resources involved and the large number of draft programming documents - some, in the Commission's view, of insufficient quality - meant that extra time was needed to meet the quality criteria set out in the regulations, especially those requiring precise quantification of objectives, prior appraisal of the expected impact, environmental information and compliance with the principle of additionality.

Since the single programming documents differ in their scope and intentions, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to publish a 'league table' by Member State comparing the times taken to reach final approval.

For the next programming period the Commission will do everything it can to ensure that work on the new programmes starts as soon as possible and is conducted expeditiously. However, it is the legislator's decision on the amounts of funding available which will determine the content of the programming documents to be drawn up by the Member States and the date from which their preparation can begin.

Experience of previous programming periods shows that agreement between Commission and Member States within the partnership is consistently achieved despite the sometimes insufficient quality of the original submissions. A situation of fundamental and irreconciliable disagreement on development priorities has not yet been encountered. Because it is essential to start a programming period with sound and well-balanced programming documents which will ensure that Community resources are used effectively and efficiently, it is in the interests of both Commission and Member States to devote the necessary time and effort to ensuring that this is the case. The Commission does not therefore feel that it would be helpful to impose a deadline on their preparation and approval.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1191/98 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: Projects in Tarija, Bolivia

Can the Commission provide Parliament with an update on the situation in Tarija, Bolivia, concerning projects carried out under the auspices of Prodizavat and, in particular, can it indicate the current position concerning the larger projects being funded by the EU in this area?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1998)

The Prodizavat ('Programa de Desarrollo Integral en la Zona Andina y el Valle Alto de Tarija', Bolivia) programme has a budget of MECU 18.5 in total, of which the Community accounts for MECU 14.16, the rest being financed by the counterpart (Prefectura de Tarija) and the beneficiaries.

After the signature of the financing agreement, the project started in October 1994 with the arrival of the european technical assistance. It is foreseen that the project terminates by October 1998.

Apart from the Prodizavat programme, the Community's food security programme also operates in the Tarija area. The Community has committed a total of MECU 80 for 1995-1999 to support actions in favour of food security in Bolivia. The overall programme falls into three categories: improving economic access to food, improving physical access to food and increasing availability of food. Specific actions and projects funded by the programme are primarily prepared on the basis of requests presented by local authorities and communities. At he territorial level, projects are concentrated in 78 rural municipalities (population 775 000), selected on the basis of the official poverty index. These municipalities are grouped into seven areas, one of which is within Tarija, with the intention of achieving a reasonable degree of integration among programme actions.