ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3445/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Rules for participation in research and the dissemination of results

With reference to the proposal for a Council decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and to the proposal for a Council decision concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (COM(97) 587 final/2-97/0309 SYN - 97/0310 CNS)(1), and whereas SMEs have difficulty in defining their actual needs as regards technology, could the Commission provide them with additional measures to enable them to take part in the research and technological development framework programme, particularly in the form of rules which will enable intermediaries to have access to the programme as "technological mediators" and a strengthening of the advisory and back-up role of the information networks in the area?

Answer given by Ms Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The 5th Framework Programme of research and technological development takes special account of the needs of small businesses (SMEs), by introducing measures (such as exploratory awards and CRAFT cooperative research schemes) specifically designed to help them.

The Member States and Associated States have also been asked to designate CRAFT "national contact points", whose job it is to inform SMEs and help them take part in the Framework Programme and the "thematic" programmes.

This assistance network will be coordinated by the Commission, which is responsible for training and informing the network members. The Commission will thus be able to finance the trans-national activities, with the coordinated assistance of the network members appointed by the different countries.

In particular, the "horizontal" theme entitled "Innovation and encouragement of SME participation" provides for economic and technological information schemes under which the national contact points will co-operate together and with other intermediaries to target information and assistance at SMEs in certain sectors of industry or certain regions of Europe. They will thus be able to play the role of "technological mediator" to which the Honourable Member refers.

(1) OJ C 40, 7.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Studies on transitional periods

In the run-up to the Pörtschach summit Austria's Federal Chancellor referred to a study which had been commissioned from research institutes in agreement with the heads of government of the candidate countries and "is to contain the data needed for the calculation of the transitional periods".

1. Is the Council aware of this?

2. Does it have any information on whether and where these studies have been commissioned?

3. Have tenders been invited, or are they being invited, for these studies throughout the Union, or is this a purely Austrian initiative?

4. Is the Council cooperating in these studies with the material at its disposal?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The Council is unaware of the study referred to by the Honourable Member on the data needed for the calculation of the transitional periods.

The European Union's general position is that accession presupposes complete acceptance of the Union's acquis. Accession to the Union implies full acceptance of the actual and potential rights and obligations attaching to the Union system and its institutional framework, known as the "acquis" of the Union. Acceptance of these rights and obligations may give rise exceptionally to transitional measures to be defined during the accession negotiations. Accordingly, transitional measures can be granted only exceptionally, will be limited in time and scope and will have to be coupled with a plan incorporating clearly defined stages for implementing the acquis.

It is for the Intergovernmental Conferences on accession to negotiate on the desirability of any transitional periods and their conditions and length. It will be recalled that, in those Conferences, the common position of the Union is adopted by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3840/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Italy's Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca di Stato (national mint and stationery office)

It was recently reported that Mr Van Miert, the European Commissioner, had written to the Italian Minister of Finance to raise with him various issues relating to the Italy's Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca di Stato (national mint and stationery office), including its monopoly over supplies of paper to government departments.

Could the Commission provide more precise information on this subject, specifying the facts alleged and the conclusions reached by Mr Van Miert?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The Commission started to investigate possible state aid to Poligrafico in April 1997. The information submitted by the Italian authorities, upon request of the Commission, on several occasions did not reassure the Commission as regards the absence of state aid.

The Commission, by decision of 28 October 1998, thus decided to start the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. The decision was notified to the Italian government by letter of 26 November 1998. The Italian government has to submit its observations and the required information within one month from the receipt of the letter.

The procedure will allow the Commission to assess the presence of state aid, and, if there is state aid, its compatibility with the common market, in the capital increases in favour of Cartiere Miliani di Fabriano, controlled by Poligrafico, and in the exclusive contract granted to Poligrafico itself for the provision of products and services to the state. The Commission will further evaluate additional aid measures to be granted by the state in connection with the restructuring of the group.

The measures will be evaluated in accordance with the state aid rules of the EC Treaty, and in particular with the guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3919/98

by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Rules on the manufacture and marketing of objects containing precious metals

On 31 July 1998 the Spanish Association of Jewellers, Silversmiths and Watchmakers submitted a formal complaint to the Commission concerning obstacles to the free movement of Spanish goods in this sector in the intra-Community area. The above association takes the view that the diverse legislation in the Member States governing the manufacture and marketing of objects containing precious metals and the lack of a Community directive on the subject are giving rise to a situation where some Member States (particularly Portugal, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and Ireland) are hindering and preventing the marketing of Spanish products in the countries concerned, even though the checks made are identical or equivalent to those carried out in Spain. The consequence is a duplication of checks, verification of purity and stamping fees for the same product, since these procedures must be carried out both in the state of origin and in the state of destination, with the result that commercial transactions are delayed and on some occasions cancelled.

The Commission:

1. Can it say whether it has launched any investigations to confirm or refute the distortions of competition reported by the Spanish Association of Jewellers, Silversmiths and Watchmakers, through which some Member States are alleged to be obstructing the free movement of Spanish goods? If so, what were the results?

2. Has it considered the possibility of bringing in legislation on the manufacture and marketing of objects containing precious metals?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3158/98 by Mrs Ferrer(1).

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 33.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3243/98

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Exploitation of child labour

Dervish Kaplan, a leading member of the Istanbul trade union movement, claimed recently that children between the ages of 9 and 13 are employed throughout the chain of production making articles of clothing for the Italian company Benetton at particularly low wages.

The exploitation of child labour is a widespread phenomenon. According to a recent study by the International Labour Office, some 250 million children worldwide between the ages of 5 and 14 are working in harsh conditions with appallingly low wages, while 120 million children are forced to leave school in order to work.

What measures is the Commission taking to combat the callous exploitation of child labour by multinational companies and to ensure that children's rights are protected?

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

(10 November 1998)

The Commission has also recently learnt about the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. Child labour in Turkey has in particular been the subject of several criticisms by the International Labour Office.

According to information collected by the Commission Benetton has just signed a memorandum with the Turkish agent holding its licence in Turkey with a view of abolishing any contractual relationship with subcontracting companies in the country that use children who are less than fifteen years old as part of their workforce.

The Commission for its part during the last few years has undertaken numerous actions and initiatives in the field of child labour (see the Commission staff paper services document updated to 11 May 1998 which the Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament¢s General Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/98

by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Trade with Turkey

Would the Commission provide figures detailing the changes in the volume of trade transacted between the EU as a whole and EU Member States, on the one hand, and Turkey, on the other, since the Customs Union came into effect?

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

(16 November 1998)

Trade between the Community and Turkey has increased substantially since the entry into force of the customs union, from around ECU 22 000 million in 1995 to upwards of ECU 28 000 million in 1996 and ECU 34 000 million in 1997. The Community's surplus on the account likewise increased over the same period, from ECU 4 000 million in 1995 to ECU 8 000 million in 1996 and ECU 10 000 million in 1997. The same trends are reflected in the figures for Member States' bilateral trade with Turkey.

The impact of customs union on EC-Turkey trade was analysed in the Commission's annual report on developments in relations with Turkey since the entry into force of the customs union(1).

(1) COM(98) 147 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3924/98

by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Recognition of hunting licences

Within the Community, wide disparities exist between the individual Member States and between the various regions and/or Länder as regards the content, conditions, scope and cost of hunting licences.

Any hunter wishing to hunt in another Member State may do so upon acquisition of a "Guest Hunters" Licence'. Such acquisition requires no examination in hunting techniques, although local residents must indeed pass an examination of that nature. To some extent, therefore, the system discriminates against the latter.

In some cases, the hunting licences acquired in one Member State are not even recognised in other countries.

The Commission:

- does it therefore intend to seek harmonisation or approximation of the provisions for the acquisition of a hunting licence; and

- does it intend, with a view to the completion of the single market, to require the Member States at least to provide for mutual recognition of the hunting examinations which are the basis for the issuing of a hunting licence?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 introduced a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration(1). This directive was subsequently supplemented by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training(2). The second directive concerns diplomas that were not covered by the first. These directives refer to professional qualifications and do not therefore cover hunting licences, which are permits issued for a leisure activity.

While containing provisions on hunting, Community legislation on the environment - especially Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(4) - does not lay down any requirements concerning the examinations that hunters must pass before acquiring a licence.

The Commission has no plans at the moment to seek Community harmonisation in this area. The honourable Member is referred to the provision of Article 3b of the EC Treaty, which states that "the Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein" and that "any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2876/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Green Paper on sport

In his answer to my Written Question E-3426/97 of 27 November 1997(1) on the position of sport in the European Union, Commissioner Oreja stated that the Commission proposed to adopt a communication on sport before August 1998. He also said that this "might be followed by a Green Paper".

In the light of the above, has the Commission yet adopted this communication and if so, what measures has it taken to prepare the Green Paper?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

At the 8th European Sports Forum, the Commission staff presented two documents to the sports bodies.

One, the Community action programme in the field of sport, describes the Commission's approach to sport within the context of the powers it enjoys.

The other, the European model of sport, is a consultation document on questions related to the development of sport in Europe.

On the basis of the replies received from the sports bodies the Commission will prepare the European Sports Conference to be held at Olympia in the first week of May 1999.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 162.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3526/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Reform of the common organisation of the market/Common Agricultural Policy (Agenda 2000)

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 1766/92 on the common organisation of the market in cereals and repealing Regulation (EEC) 2731/75 fixing standard qualities for common wheat, rye, barley, maize and durum wheat and to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (COM(98) 0158 final - 98/0107 CNS and 98/0108 CNS)(1).

In the case of cereals, a 10 % reduction in prices is sufficient instead of the 20 % proposed by the Commission and the proposal relating to maize is unacceptable.

The proposal relating to oil seeds is not well-founded (a 30 % reduction compared with the current aid level) as it would considerably jeopardise the competitiveness of these crops.

The situation would also worsen vis-à-vis the United States since the latter has strengthened its aid system. The sector would probably feel even more strongly the effects of enlargement to the East.

Can the Commission therefore ensure that the EU does not align its aid for oil seeds on the levels laid down with regard to cereals until there has been a transitional period during which a supplement should be granted for oil seeds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The Commission has already had the opportunity to explain to Parliament in detail the reasons underlying the Agenda 2000(2) proposals for agriculture.

With particular regard to oilseeds, bringing aid per hectare into line with that for other crops (including cereals) and voluntary freezing would greatly simplify the scheme and obviate its current specific character.

The Commission has therefore been able to propose that the oilseeds maximum guaranteed area (MGA) scheme should no longer be applied, since - under the Blair House agreement from which the scheme derived - the hectare limit applied to specific payments in respect of oilseeds. It should be borne in mind that the scheme currently in force provides for aid to be adjusted in line with oilseed prices in Europe and for penalties to be imposed if the MGA is exceeded - penalties which can quickly become very substantial, since they are cumulative if the limit is breached more than once.

Gradual adjustment over a transitional period as suggested by the Honourable Member would entail retaining these complex rules, thereby denying producers both the greater simplification and transparency of the scheme proposed from 1 July 2000 and the opportunity to adjust their crop rotations more freely in response to the likely increase in world oilseed prices brought about by the vegetable oil component.

Under the Blair House agreement, these provisions would have to be retained throughout the transitional period in order to cover any divergence between oilseed aid and cereal or freezing aid - thereby making oilseed aid specific in character.

(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998, p. 1.

(2) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3805/98

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Eligibility criteria for decentralised cooperation programmes

New draconian eligibility criteria, especially concerning the bank guarantee, are a feature of the relaunch of the decentralised cooperation programmes announced by the European Commission.

Does the Commission intend to maintain a criterion of this nature which, on the one hand, penalises all small-scale structures (such as associations and NGOs), which are unable to take on a guarantee like that, and, on the other, contravenes French law relating to local authorities?

French local authorities are automatically solvent under French law. The bank guarantee criterion imposed by the Commission would require the local authorities to pay bank charges and would de facto violate public accounting rules.

The new criteria imposed by the Commission in respect of the decentralised cooperation programmes may actually discourage a higher rate of participation by civil society.

Civil society has been waiting long and patiently for the decentralised cooperation programmes to be relaunched. Cannot the Commission put in place an alternative system which would enable small-scale structures and local authorities to participate in the relaunch of programmes of this nature without any encumbrances?

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

(2 February 1999)

Under the Commission's Structural Fund proposals for 2000-2006, bank guarantees could - where necessary - be required in respect of public money made available to intermediary organisations responsible for implementation. This requirement would not apply to the final recipients of support.

It would be for Member States to determine, in accordance with national legislation, how these provisions would be implemented in practice. Such arrangements already apply in some Member States, particularly to local action groups receiving support under the Community's Leader initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Agenda 21

Given the commitment to sustainability in the Treaty, does the Commission agree that it would be useful to have a local Agenda 21 coordinator in the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

In addition to the commitment to sustainable development in the EC Treaty, the Commission and the Member States are signatories to Agenda 21 and so have signalled their approval of the Local Agenda 21 process set out in Chapter 28. Article 10 of Decision No 2179/98/EC of the Parliament and Council of 24 September 1998(1) on the review of the 5th action programme(2) has strengthened the Community's commitment to Local Agenda 21 which is seen as especially important in relation to urban issues. The Communication "Sustainable urban development in the European Union: A Framework for action" includes the intention to stimulate Agenda 21 activities and to ensure an appropriate legal basis necessary to fund such activities on a multi-annual basis.

Community policy commitments to sustainability Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 are therefore well-established. The Commission already supports a number of activities related to local sustainability, such as the European sustainable cities and towns campaign and the work of local energy agencies. Adoption of the above communication implies further work in this field, for example exploring ways of monitoring Local Agenda 21 progress (an important component of reporting to the United Nations commission on sustainable development), further development of local sustainability indicators and examining practical ways for closer dialogue with local authorities.

The Commission may consider in addition whether new instruments are required. In this context the Commission has noted the Parliament's adoption in July 1998 of an own initiative report "Strengthening EU Urban Environment Policy" which among other things calls on the Commission "to mldr implement a sustainability audit scheme".

Administrative responsibility for the Commission's various actions to support local sustainability is spread over a range of units and directorates general. In view of the broad range of existing and likely future activities in this field and as announced in the above communication the designation of a "Local Agenda 21 co-ordinator" within the job description of a particular Commission unit represents one option that could be considered. The Commission has not yet taken any decision in that respect.

It should also be noted that since its decision on green housekeeping in July 1997 the Commission has an action plan to green its way of functioning and to minimise the adverse impact of its presence on the local urban environment.

(1) OJ L 275, 10.10.1998.

(2) COM(98) 605.
91999E0143

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 143/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN to the Commission. EU aid to Osterholz-Scharmbeck



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0141