ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Centralization of supplies purchasing for the European institutions

Together with the other European institutions, the Commission is seeking, in the interests of cost-cutting, to centralize the purchase of supplies, particularly furniture, in Brussels. They are keen both to order larger quantities at a time and to extend the duration of contracts, which may reach 10 years by successive renewals. This new approach, which seems to promise savings, has its defects, however. Firstly, the average life of the furniture is often shorter than the contract periods the Commission is seeking to obtain. Second, the new approach openly favours big firms which are able to cope with orders of an ever increasing volume.

Is the Commission aware that the increasing size and duration of contracts, and their centralisation in Brussels, disadvantages small and medium-sized enterprises? Is the Commission aware that in the interest of marginal cost reductions it is heavily penalising one of the sectors of the economy on which it is most reliant for job creation?

What measures does the Commission propose to take to avoid its cost-cutting efforts having a negative impact on small and medium-sized enterprises?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 1998)

The purpose of long-term contracts and centralised furniture purchases is not solely to reduce purchasing costs. It is also to standardise equipment with a view to simplifying inventory management, encouraging exchanges and reducing the volume of furniture to be moved when staff change are relocated.

The purpose of the contracts is to supplement and renew the furniture in use at the Commission and possibly at the other institutions. The duration of the contracts is not related to the life span of the equipment.

Long-term contracts bind the Commission - or another institution - to a supplier for a longer period, but they have no impact on the annual volume of purchases. The volume tends to be very substantial and can vary considerably from one year to another. Since the Commission wishes to have its orders performed efficiently without disrupting the financial equilibrium of its suppliers, it deals with firms whose production capacity matches its requirements but does not impose clauses that discriminate against European firms in general or small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular.

As a rule, given the need to optimise the use of public funds in the current climate of budgetary restraint, the Commission's purchasing strategy aims to secure the best possible value for money. This reflects the European policy on public procurement, which seeks to improve competitiveness of European firms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1247/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Refusal to issue passports to Croatian refugees

During the war in the former Yugoslavia refugees from all the constituent states arrived in Greece and many of them are still in the country today. Under new legislation in Greece they are obliged to obtain a "Green Employment Card" if they wish to find work and remain there. In order to obtain this card, these refugees must provide evidence of their identity by presenting their passports.

According to publications in the Greek press the Croatian Embassy in Greece is refusing to issue new passports in replacement for those that have expired. As a result Croatian nationals who are living in Greece and wish to work there are unable to obtain the Employment Card.

Will the Commission say: Is it aware of this action by the Croatian Embassy in Greece?

Given that it is the EU's policy to encourage the repatriation of refugees and given also that actions such as the above constitute human rights violations and that Croatia receives funding under the Community Programme PHARE, what measures does it intend to take to prevail upon Croatia to meet its obligations under this Community Programme?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 1998)

The Commission is not aware of the details of the particular case mentioned by the Honourable Member, but shares his concern in relation to the refusal by any state to grant passports to its citizens.

Since August 1995, Croatia has not been eligible for the PHARE programme. Conditions for eligibility for this programme, as well as other relations with the Community, were set out by the Council in its conclusions of 29 April 1997. In addition to democratic reforms and respect for generally recognised standards of human and minority rights, these conditions include compliance with obligations under the peace agreements including "the offer of real opportunities to displaced persons... and refugees to return to their place of origin". The Commission has recently stated that Croatia does not comply with these conditions, and that until it does so, general economic and financial assistance through PHARE will not be extended and nor will negotiations begin on a cooperation agreement.

In fact, as the Commission stated in its recent conclusions on compliance with these conditions, unless Croatia makes progress in relation to the relevant criteria, the justification of autonomous trade preferences presently enjoyed by Croatia may be questioned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0942/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: "Ship-shaped" production facilities for oil exploration

Does the Council Directive of 17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector cover "ship-shaped" production facilities for oil exploration?

Given the revised OECD Understanding on Export Credits for Ships which came into force in 1996, would such floating vessels be eligible for EU subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1289/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Fraud involving aid for Chernobyl

Since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster vast sums of money have been channelled to Ukraine from a number of sources, including the European Union, in order to support or make possible clearance work and safety improvement measures at the site. However, according to the latest information from the EnviroNews Service, the bulk of all international financial aid has been used not to improve safety, but to line the pockets of various officials involved in the financial transactions. An overall sum of US$740 million is being quoted.

1. Is the Commission aware that a major part of the aid, including EU aid, intended to improve safety at Chernobyl has not really been used for this purpose, but has been pocketed by mafia-like organisations?

2. How high does the Commission estimate this share (as a percentage of all aid provided so far and also as precisely as possible in terms of monetary value)?

3. What steps is it taking to prevent European aid being misappropriated in this way, what success has it met with and what methods for the fraudulent use of EU aid has it established so far?

4. Is it correct that it has settlements of accounts and reports for only a third or so of all projects which have received EU aid in this connection and that EBRD has released funds even without the necessary information on projects and settlements of accounts?

5. How does it intend to prevent a large proportion of future aid allocated for improving the safety of the sarcophagus being pocketed by individuals instead of funding the project in question?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

In general, Community assistance to Ukraine in support of the closure of Chernobyl is channelled through the technical assistance programmes and payments are made on the basis of work performed and original invoices. Transparency in the management of Community funds is maintained on all levels, and the Commission is not aware of any misappropriations of these funds. In addition, the recent report of the Court of auditors did not detect any such fraud.

The existing system of controls is deemed to be sufficient to prevent the misappropriation of technical assistance funds provided to Ukraine in support of the closure of Chernobyl.

The Commission is in possession of all relevant reports with respect to the Community projects and activities. The Commission, as shareholder of the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) and as a donor to the Nuclear safety account and the Chernobyl shelter fund, does not deem the EBRD's financial controls to be in any way less rigorous than its own and is not aware of any payments made by the EBRD on the basis of insufficient information.

The rules of the Chernobyl shelter fund are deemed to be sufficiently rigorous to prevent the misappropriation of the funds concerned. In addition, as the fund has been constituted only recently, almost no disbursements have yet taken place. There can be no question, therefore, of any misappropriation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(29 January 1998)

Subject: Unauthorized release of Monsanto sugar beet in the Netherlands

There are reports that two tons of sugar beet from field trials in the Netherlands, which had not been approved for marketing for any purpose, were mixed with conventional crops and entered the food chain as refined sugar via the Dutch Co-operative Sugar Company. The pulp has reportedly been used for animal feed.

Can the Commission explain:

1. How this unauthorized release happened?

2. What checks and controls were in place and how they were breached?

3. What emergency measures have been taken to retrieve the contaminated sugar supply and the pulp and whether these corresponded with the emergency response plans contained in the consent application?

4. What warning notices have been given to food processors, retailers and animal feedstuff suppliers?

5. Whether any other such unapproved releases have been reported by any Member State?

6. What new controls the Commission will recommend to avoid a repetition of such unauthorized releases?

Supplementary answer

given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1998)

The Commission is now in a position to provide the following information:

1. to 4. The Commission has enquired from the Dutch authority what action they have taken in the matter of sugar derived from a field trial of genetically modified sugar beet entering the food chain with the pulp being used as animal feed. The release in question had a consent for research and development purposes, but not for placing on the market under Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)(1).The Commission is forwarding directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the information submitted to the Dutch authority under Council Directive 90/220/EEC as a follow up to a provisional reply provided by the Commission.

5. The Commission has so far not received any reports of any other such incidents from the Member States.

6. The operation of part B of Directive 90/220/EEC which concerns research and development of GMOs is under the competence of the Member States to decide whether they need to institute any new controls to avoid similar incidents occurring during research and development releases of GMOs. The action taken by the Dutch authority and other authorities where control measures have been applied illustrates the importance that Member States attach to their obligations under Article 4 of Directive 90/220/EEC which requires them to carry out inspection and control measures.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Fourth Framework Programme for Research

How many applications have been submitted from Austria in connection with the Fourth Framework Programme in the field of Research?

How many applications has the Commission approved, and to which specific projects do they relate?

What does this list of projects look like excluding mergers?

Who were the coordinators of these projects, and what were the partner countries involved?

How much money was made available for the individual projects?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson 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 E-0868/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Alpine transit

The Commission would like to submit a proposal for the harmonization of the prohibitions relating to the use of heavy goods vehicles at weekends and on public holidays. Only eight Member States have restrictions on the use of HGVs, which differ, Austria having the strictest legislation. This regulation will therefore have far-reaching implications.

Does the Commission see any way of retaining the prohibition of the use of HGVs on Saturdays, which is so important for Austria, and if not, in what circumstances might there be exceptions?

Austria has most public holidays in the EU, and a numerical ceiling would have lasting implications for Austria. Can the Commission say whether there are plans to take account of the large number of Austrian public holidays, and what form might this take in practice?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1998)

The Honourable Member refers to a recent Commission proposal for a directive to harmonise rules governing driving bans on heavy goods vehicles(1).

The proposal, if adopted, will allow Member States to have driving bans on Saturdays if they wish. Indeed, driving bans of any duration will continue to be permitted as at present on all roads other than the trans European road network.

However, the proposed legislation would only allow bans exceeding the period 07h00-22h00 (24h00 in summer) on Sundays and holidays on the trans European network after justification on objective grounds and following prior approval by the Commission. The proposal specifies the criteria on the basis of which bans can be justified. These can be on road safety, environmental or social grounds.

The proposal does not in any way affect the number of public holidays in Member States. It simply requires that any Member State wishing to impose driving bans on public holidays on the trans European road network should inform the Commission in advance of the days and roads affected.

(1) COM(98) 115.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 241/98 by María ESTEVAN BOLEA to the Commission. Biological diversity



Official Journal C 386 , 11/12/1998 P. 0008



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/98 by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1998) Subject: Biological diversity What arrangements has the Commission made to ensure that all its various departments are involved in the process of drawing up the EU's Biological Diversity Strategy?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/98

by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Sale to private citizens of the "historic remains" of the Kingdom of Naples

Can the Commission intervene to overturn an astonishing decision by the Italian government to sell off - in separate plots - the state property which survives in Gaeta (Lazio) as historic testimony to the desperate last stand of those who fought for the Kingdom of Naples?

A huge tide of public opinion is mounting against this senseless decision which is unanimously opposed by the Gaeta municipal council. It seems absurd, and an insult to the heritage of Italy, particularly Southern Italy, that buildings and structures such as the "Philistal battery" with its magazines, the "Trinità powder magazine" and the "casemates on the bastions of Serapo" are to be sold off for a few hundred million Lire, dispersed amongst the highest bidders and "privatized", with no regard for the fact - amongst others - that these historic remains are the main tourist attraction in Gaeta and a major subject of cultural exhibitions, meetings and conventions of great importance and interest.

Does the Commission not agree that Europe cannot be constructed solely on the basis of its markets and banks and that those are worth nothing unless the European Union intervenes to protect its "roots" and its heritage?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's request concerning the sale to private citizens of the "historic remains" of the Kingdom of Naples. It attaches great value to the safeguarding and development of features characteristic of Europe's artistic heritage and history, and lends its support through the Raphael programme. However, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, this is a matter for the Italian authorities, not the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0756/98

by Outi Ojala (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation

In its decision in case C-249/96 (Lisa Grant v. South West Trains), the Court of Justice of the European Communities held that, under the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission and having consulted the European Parliament, take certain measures to eliminate various kinds of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Although the Treaty of Amsterdam has not yet been ratified, it is already possible and indeed essential to begin making the changes it contains. What specific measures does the Commission propose to take to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation in the European Union, and how does it propose to involve Parliament in preparations for such measures?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 1998)

The Commission is currently exploring the possibilities offered by Article 13 of the draft Amsterdam Treaty and its implications for Community policy. A wide debate to identify the way forward on Article 13 will be launched during 1998, to ensure a broad consultation with all key actors on non-discrimination issues. Parliament representatives will be involved in this consultation process.

At the present time the Commission is not in a position to give the Honourable Member a precise answer concerning the possible priorities, in terms of types of discrimination and specific actions. This question will depend very much of the outcome of the consultation process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: Tax on beverages

The Austrian Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichshof) has found that the tax levied in Austria on all alcoholic beverages and beverages mixed with alcohol (Getraenkesteuer) might be incompatible with European law.

1. How many and which particular Member States levy similar excise duties?

2. Is this an infringement of the EU directive on excise duties?

3. Do beverage taxes constitute prohibited turnover taxes?

4. Does the levying of the tax on beverages amount to giving illegal preferential treatment to "farmgate" sales, which are not subject to this tax?

5. If a breach of the Treaty were to have occurred and the Commission were to bring Treaty infringement proceedings against Austria, when would that decision probably be delivered?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1392/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Disability actions (pilot project)

Could the Commission confirm its intended timetable for implementation of this budget line for 1998, including the issuing of guidelines, deadline for receipt of applications, likely date for issuing decisions and for first payments to be made?

How does the timetable compare with 1997 for the same actions?

Can the Commission confirm that it intends to maintain a further year of pilot disability actions in 1999? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that two calls for proposals "support for exchange and information actions on equal opportunities for disabled people" and "support for non-governmental representative European coordination organisations for disabled people"(1) have been published in the Official Journal.

To sum up, applications for the first call must be sent by 12 June 1998 at the latest. The final selection of applications is fixed for 24 July 1998. Only actions initiated on 1 October 1998 at the earliest and by 31 December 1998 at the latest are eligible for Community cofinancing. As for the second call, requests covering the annual operating budget of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) from 1 April 1998 must be submitted by 29 May 1998 at the latest. The Commission will take its final decision on 26 June 1998. These dates roughly correspond to the dates decided for the 1997 calls for proposals.

The first payments will not be made until after the contracts have been signed.

In the preliminary draft budget for 1999, the Commission proposed the entry of appropriations for support to representative European coordination NGOs for disabled people and innovative measures to raise public awareness of the rights of disabled people.

(1) OJ C 103, 4.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: European Union policy on tourism

In a few years tourism will be the most dynamic sector of the EU economy. Tourism not only helps to promote international understanding, it also creates many jobs for small and medium-sized businesses and is a sustainable long-term activity.

Does the Commission not therefore consider that it is vital and urgent to introduce a real Community policy on tourism and what measures does it think are appropriate, given that, as yet, there does not really seem to be a legal basis for tourism?

As part of an effective European policy on tourism, is it not essential to set up a European Tourism Office in one of the countries which is a major tourist destination?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the economic, social and cultural importance of tourism, especially because of its contribution to employment in Europe.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion concerning the urgent need for a formal Community policy on tourism, on condition that it is based on the principle of subsidiarity and does not intrude upon the responsibilities of the Member States. With a view to establishing a legal basis which ensures the continuity and effectiveness of Community measures in this area, the Commission will continue its efforts to obtain a Council Decision on a Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism, such as the one put forward in the 1996 proposal for a Council Decision on a First Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism - Philoxenia (1997-2000)(1) and the subsequent amended proposal(2).

Given its existing responsibilities, however, the Commission does not consider the creation of a European Tourism Office appropriate.

(1) OJ C 222, 31.7.1996.

(2) OJ C 13, 14.1.1997.