ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/98

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Proposal for a directive on the distance selling of financial services

In view of the speech given by Commissioner Monti to the European Parliament in plenary on 19 February 1998;

the European Parliament's resolution on the Commission Green Paper on financial services (A4-0048/97)(1);

the European Commission's programme for 1998; and

the Communication from the Commission - Financial services: enhancing consumer confidence, of 26 June 1997 (COM(97) 0309),

will the Commission provide a justification for its decision, taken in July 1998, not to pursue its work on a proposal for a directive on the distance selling of financial services?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, after examining the proposal for a Directive on the distance selling of financial services in July, it took the view that adoption should be deferred so that the matter could be explored further in the light of the points made below.

First, the preparations will have to take account of the strategic review of the single market in financial services that the Commission will present to the Vienna European Council. Second, the degree of harmonisation to be achieved will have to be analysed more closely with a view to ensuring a high level of consumer protection while guaranteeing free movement of financial services provided at a distance. Lastly, there is a need for total coherence with other Community policies, especially in the field of electronic commerce.

(1) OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 137.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/98

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Installation of a hazardous waste dump in Nerva (Huelva province, Spain)

Nerva town council in the province of Huelva recently issued a licence to the undertaking Complejo Medioambiental de Andalucía authorising it to begin operating a hazardous waste dump.

1. Can the Commission ask the Spanish authorities what measures they have taken to guarantee that waste sent to the Nerva dump does not endanger public health and the environment?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to ensure compliance with existing Community legislation on the environment, and above all the following Directives:

(a) 75/442/EEC(1) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC(2);

(b) 91/689/EEC(3) on hazardous waste;

(c) 85/337/EEC(4) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment; and

(d) 90/313/EEC(5) on the freedom of access to information on the environment?

3. Can the Commission say whether Community funding has been provided to help set up this waste dump?

4. Can the Commission say how it is monitoring the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

The Commission has received a complaint regarding the matters the Honourable Members refer to. It has approached the Spanish authorities for information to help it examine the complaint, though this has not yet been supplied. The Commission will duly inform the complainant and the Honourable Members of any development in the matter.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(5) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Community plan for hotel standards

Certain EU Member States have set up national programmes designed to harmonise criteria with a view to guaranteeing the standard of facilities offered by undertakings operating in the hotel trade and the services they offer.

These criteria vary from country to country, leaving clients somewhat at a loss as to the kind of facilities they can expect to receive on the basis of the symbols attesting to the standard of the participating hotel whose accommodation and allied services they wish to use.

Can the Commission say whether Community criteria exist to guarantee the standard of the hotel services provided throughout the EU? Does it believe it appropriate to promote an initiative to harmonise standards of excellence, whereby the quality of hotel establishments throughout the EU participating in the EU scheme would be guaranteed by an appropriate Community sign to be displayed at the hotel entrance?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

At present, there is no common Community system that permits, according to pre-determined criteria, the evaluation of the quality of services provided by hotel facilities.

The Commission considers that the development of voluntary self-regulation schemes aimed at certifying, on a Community scale, the quality of services provided by hotel facilities should serve to encourage competitiveness in the Community tourist industry and to provide consumers with the maximum level of information when choosing a hotel.

The Commission considers that it is for the industry to take the lead on this issue and, in the context of a new tourism programme, it would be open to initiatives taken in that direction. However, a proposal for the harmonisation of different quality standards at Community level is not envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2465/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Continued imports of Italian waste for disposal in Biebesheim in Germany

Since 1997 the authorities in Darmstadt have, on a number of occasions, granted the Italian firm 3 R Servizi S.p.A. authorization, pursuant to Articles 4 (2)(a) and 5(1) of the Regulation on shipments of waste (EEC) 259/93(1) to ship Italian waste for disposal at the special waste incineration facility in Biebesheim. The waste is imported by the firm Hessische Industriemüll GmbH (HIM).

Up to 24 June 1998 authorization had been granted to import shipments of at least 7 000 tonnes of waste from Italy for disposal in Germany. 3 R Servizi S.p.A. has announced its intention of submitting further applications. The competent Land authorities feel unable, on grounds of European law, to forbid these waste imports.

Under Article 4(3)(a)(i) of the Regulation on shipments of waste, "Member States may take measures in accordance with the Treaty to prohibit generally or partially or to object systematically to shipments of waste". Does this clause also permit the imposing of a general ban on shipments of waste for disposal? If so, what conditions are imposed?

In this connection, what significance can be attached to the fact that the Regulation is based on Article 130s of the EC Treaty and the Member States are therefore empowered, pursuant to Article 130t of the Treaty, to take more stringent protective measures?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2356/98

by Carole Tongue (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Commission support for maintaining Polygram Filmed Entertainment as a European company

The European Union's Audiovisual Policy has as one of its goals the promotion of strong, integrated European companies capable of promoting and distributing films at a global level. Polygram has been sold to a non-EU company, but it is possible that Polygram Filmed Entertainment (PFE) will be sold separately.

In view of the above, does the Commission politically support efforts made to maintain PFE as a European company? Furthermore, given that Polygram has, in the past, received financial aid from European sources, including the MEDIA II programme, what would be the position if it ceased to be a European company?

Given that it is a stated policy of the EU to promote this globally competitive company, would the Commission adopt a favourable approach under competition law in the event of a consortium being put together for other European companies to buy into PFE?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission considers that Polygram Filmed Entertainment (PFE) has played a vital role in the recent revival of the European film industry. Its position as a globally competitive player is fully consistent with the aims of the Community's audiovisual policy. This is particularly true of PFE's distribution-led production strategy. For more details on the Commission's latest strategic thinking, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's recent communication to the Parliament and the Council entitled "Audiovisual policy: next steps"(1).

PFE has received support from the MEDIA II programme, for example in the framework of the "Fastlane" training programme for producers. Article 3 of Council Decision 95/563/EC(2), on which the development and distribution strand of the MEDIA II programme is based, stipulates that "the businesses benefiting from the programme must be in the possession and continue to be in possession, whether directly or by majority participation, of the Member States and/or of nationals from Member States". Under this Article therefore, businesses must be, and continue to be, at least majority European-owned to be eligible for support.

Of course any deal would have to be submitted for clearance to the Commission which will examine it in the application of competition rules.

(1) COM(98) 446.

(2) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2568/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Human rights in Tunisia

Following reports that Tunisia has been involved in numerous suppressions of human rights: the right to travel, freedom of speech and the right to be politically active, what action does the Council intend to take to ensure that Tunisia respects the human rights clause of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

1. The Council is aware of the importance of respect for human rights throughout the world and shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding the human rights situation in Tunisia. It is watching developments in this area very closely.

2. The Council recognises that Tunisia is a country in transition and one of the Mediterranean partners most committed to its relationship with the Union. It recognises that Tunisia is an active participant in the Barcelona Process, striving to transform the Mediterranean basin into an area of peace, prosperity and stability. It acknowledges that Tunisia plays a leading role in this Process and has set the pace for the other countries in the area, by being the first Mediterranean partner to ratify an Association Agreement. It has thus committed itself, among other things, to a regular political dialogue, which will include human rights.

3. A first EU-Tunisia Association Council took place on 13-14 July 1998, which also allowed for an exchange of views on human rights questions; on that occasion the EU had the opportunity of stressing that the aims of the association are based on shared respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It confirmed that the political dialogue between the two partners will enable them to consult each other frankly on a whole series of political issues, including human rights, and should contribute to the government's aspirations to develop democratic traditions and civil society based on the rule of law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3210/98

by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Consequences of the abolition of duty-free arrangements

At the meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers of 19 May 1998 in Brussels, the Irish proposal to make an EU-wide study of the implications of intra-Community duty-free sales was rejected. The German government had explicitly supported the Irish proposal on the basis of the relevant decisions of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Given that the proposal did not find a majority, the Commission agreed to submit a working document on possible instruments to cushion the impact of the abolition of duty-free sales.

Can the Commission say:

1. When will the working document on the instruments available at regional level in connection with the abolition of duty-free sales be available?

2. Is the Commission prepared to envisage further special regional assistance, going beyond the existing regulations, within the framework of the Structural Funds or new special measures?

3. In what way have the coastal regions affected, almost all of which are EU-assisted areas, been supported since the decision on the abolition of duty-free sales in 1991/92?

4. Does the Commission expect duty-free sales to end in the middle of 1999 as agreed?

Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

1. The Commission paper clarifying the instruments available to Member States to address possible consequences of the abolition of intra-Community duty-free sales on 1 July 1999 will be presented as soon as possible and in any event before the end of this year.

2. The Commission is prepared to consider any proposals put forward by national and regional authorities for assistance in the eligible areas and under the structural funds pursuant to the existing rules of procedures.

3. Given that not all structural fund programmes have a specific regional character, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with a precise figure for the contribution from the structural funds to coastal regions. It estimates however that, for the current programming period (1994-1999), this contribution could be in the order of ECU 100 000 million (in 1994 prices).

4. Yes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Earthquake disasters in Turkey

In view of the tragedy caused by the disastrous earthquakes of 27 June which struck the Ceyhan area of Turkey, causing 112 deaths and at least 1041 injuries, in addition to incalculable material damage, what steps will the Commission take to provide immediate aid to the stricken areas? It has also emerged that this seismic area has been chosen as the site of a nuclear power station, which would be extremely dangerous, as tragically confirmed by the earthquakes which occurred two days ago.

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

As soon as news of the earthquake in Turkey was received the Commission established contact with a range of information sources. These included its delegation in Ankara, the Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies (IFRC) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Geneva (OCHA).

As early as 30 June, the Delegation in Ankara, via a press release, indicated the Commission's readiness to intervene. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the only aid agency active in the country was the local Red Crescent Society.

On 3 July the IFRC issued a letter requesting funds for the emergency. This was the only aid agency from which a request for funds had been received by the Commission. On the basis of this call for funds, the Commission decided to grant the sum of ECU 500 000. These funds have enabled a short-term emergency relief programme to be launched. The programme is being implemented by the IFRC. Funding covers the purchase of essential relief items including blankets, tents and mobile kitchens.

Following the occurrence of the earthquake in the Adana region, the Turkish authorities confirmed that all necessary security measures had been taken regarding the future Akkuyu nuclear power station. No construction has yet begun on site. With regard to the future Akkuyu nuclear plant, the Honourable Member should refer also to the Commission's answer to Written Questions E-1876/98 and E-2190/98 by Mr Kaklamanis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/98

by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Budget Item A-3029

Can the Commission indicate which organisations receive grants from budget item A-3029 and the sums available to each organisation?

Can it also inform Parliament of the criteria applied when projects/organisations are selected under this item?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The list of organisations receiving grants in 1998 from budget item A-3029 "Assistance for non-governmental international youth organisations", showing the amounts allocated to each, has been sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat-General.

The eligibility and selection criteria for beneficiary organisations were published in the Official Journal(1).

(1) OJ C 374, 10.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Inward investment agreements with car manufacturers

Can the Commission comment on whether or not it is legal for Member States to enter into inward investment agreements with car manufacturers that result in car prices in such Member States becoming artificially inflated compared to the rest of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on the question submitted by the Honourable Member, as it has not been informed about such investment agreements. As for the analysis of car price differences across the Community, the Commission is sending its bi-annual publication on car prices direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In this context, the Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2577/98 by Mrs Anita Pollack(1).

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 150.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/98

by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Council

(8 September 1998)

Subject: Human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

What measures has the Council taken and what measures does it intend to take to encourage the Democratic Republic of Congo to respect human rights, release its political detainees and make an effective commitment to democratization?

Reply

(27 November 1998)

The Council shares the objectives cited by the Honourable Member. It has made its position on the current conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) clear in its declarations of 11, 19 and 27 August 1998. In summary, the Council has called for strict respect of human rights, encouraged an early withdrawal of all intervention forces and warned against retaliation by anybody against local populations of different ethnic origin. The Council has also called urgently for respect and protection of humanitarian aid workers from the EU and third countries and underlined EU readiness to support a political process aimed at finding a peaceful solution.

In the first instance, the Council believes that the key to the conflict is to convince all parties, the Government, the rebels and the different external supporters of President Kabila and of the rebels to accept the need to seek a lasting political solution.

At the request of the Council, the EU Special Envoy Mr Aldo Ajello has recently visited the capitals of the region, where he offered his services and the support of the Union to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. He raised with President Kabila the need for reconciliation and the risk of growing ethnic hatred as a result of the conflict. In all his contacts, Mr Ajello outlined the Union's position. He also expressed the EU's willingness to play a major role in the reconstruction of the DRC, after resolution of the present difficulties, and - once progress has been made on democracy, the rule of law and human rights - to restore development cooperation programmes with the authorities.

The Council is also in contact with the Southern African Development Community Presidency (i.e. South Africa), regarding specific possibilities for EU support (including possible role for the EU Special Envoy Mr Ajello) for a political process aimed at finding a peaceful, negotiated solution.

On the question of democratisation in the DRC, the EU Common Position on support for the democratisation process enables the Union to offer assistance as soon as the necessary conditions are at hand. In this regard, while the recent announcement that elections will take place in 1999 as proposed is to be welcomed, the Union is concerned that no arbitrary conditions be attached to the prerogative of all the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to exercise their democratic rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the Euratom Directive

Article 6 of the Euratom Directive requires that no practice involving exposures to radiation should be adopted unless it produces sufficient benefit to the exposed individuals or to society to offset the radiation detriment it causes.

In the legal judgment in the case of R v. HMIP & Others ex parte Greenpeace Ltd & Lancashire County Council (1994) Mr Justice Potts ruled that Ministers had erred in law in concluding that justification of the authorisation (to discharge radioactivity) was not needed and that there was a legal obligation to justify the grant of authorisations.

However, since then, the THORP reprocessing plant has consistently failed to keep any of the goals on which this judgment was reached. On this basis, what action does the Commission intend to take against Britain to ensure compliance with the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom(1) does not differ in effect from the previous Directive (Directive 80/836/Euratom(2) as revised by Directive 84/467/Euratom(3)) on the principle of justification, which principle applies to types classes or categories of practice. Determination of the justification of any new classes or types of practices is the duty of the Member State. It should take place before the introduction of the class or type of practice and as early as possible to reduce the influence of the already incurred costs in balancing economic and social factors against health detriment. The communication(4) from the Commission concerning the implementation of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom states that "Compliance with this principle can be safely assumed in respect of a new class or type of practice by the existence or laying down of regulations specifically concerning the class or type of practice". However the newly introduced proviso of Article 6 (2) of that Directive reflects that there might be a need to review the justification of existing classes or types of practices.

When transposing the new basic safety standards before 13 May 2000 as required by the Directive the United Kingdom will communicate its draft legislation according to the Article 33 procedure of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission will make appropriate recommendations on the provisions related to the principle of justification with a view to harmonising the provisions applicable in the Member States.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.

(3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.

(4) OJ C 133, 30.4.1998.