ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/98

by Marlies Mosiek-Urbahn (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Programme for senior citizens based on the "European voluntary service for young people"

The European voluntary service for young people between the ages of 18 and 25 is extremely popular; every year the European Commission finds placements for young people in the social sector, to give them the opportunity to spend a year working in another EU country gaining experience in the areas of the arts, environment, rural development, equal opportunities, health and so on.

Senior citizens would also be very interested in the setting up of a similar programme to allow older people to spend a year doing voluntary work in another EU country with financial support from the EU so that they could get to know the country, its culture, language and people. Does the Commission plan to extend the successful voluntary scheme for young people to those over the age of 55?

Answer given by Mme Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

The European voluntary service programme which has been recently adopted (Decision No 1686/98/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 20 July 1998 establishing the Community action programme "European voluntary service for young people"(1)) aims to provide young people aged between 18 and 25 with an educational experience outside formal education schemes.

The Commission has no plans at the moment to initiate a similar programme for older people. However, the Commission does recognise the importance of voluntary action as part of an active approach to ageing.

The Commission is currently preparing a communication on issues affecting older people, including active ageing. This should be ready by the end of the year in time to feed into the policy debate surrounding the United Nations international year which, in 1999, has the theme of "Towards a society for all ages".

(1) OJ L 214, 31.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Offensive attitudes and questionable practices by American consular staff in the EU

Instances of offensive attitudes and questionable practices by USA consular staff in the EU Member States are becoming alarmingly frequent. Their treatment of European Union nationals (even in the consulate situated in Brussels, the "capital of Europe", and elsewhere) is to put it mildly disdainful. Certain practices are obviously designed to extract money (for example a minimum charge of $45 for a visa). The need to obtain a visa to visit the USA is in itself an unacceptable anachronism which is offensive to European Union nationals.

1. Are Americans wishing to visit EU Member States required to obtain visas?

2. What steps does the Council of Ministers intend to take in response to the anachronistic and offensive requirement by the American authorities that European Union nationals wishing to visit the USA obtain visas?

3. What is the purpose of questions on the visa application forms such as:

Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization? etc.?

4. What steps does the Council of Ministers intend to take on behalf of the EU to make it clear to the American Consular authorities in Member States of the Union that they must treat European Union nationals in the same way that European Union consular authorities treat towards American citizens?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

In reply to the first question, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission communication pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 101 of 3 April 1998.

The Council is not competent to reply to the Honourable Member's second, third and fourth questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2284/98

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Council

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Emergency created by illegal immigration in southern Italy and the Italian Government's failure to take action

Sadly, over the last few weeks, the problem of illegal immigrants being disembarked along the coast of southern Italy has reached alarming proportions; in Sicily alone, in just one week, the authorities intercepted hundreds of African nationals who had been enlisted by organizations involved in transporting illegal migrants across the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, due to the reprehensible failure of the official Italian authorities to take any practical advance measures to counter illegal immigration, the influx of immigrants can no longer be contained and the majority of them, having eluded any form of control by the police or health authorities, succeed in travelling on to other Member States, where they are destined for a life of poverty and exploitation by criminal organizations among others. Thus the Italian Government, by its permissive policy, has failed to comply with the specific undertakings it made in ratifying the Schengen Agreement, thereby prejudicing public order and security in Italy and the rest of the Union.

In view of the foregoing, does the Council intend to take immediate action to urge the Italian Government to honour the undertakings made by it, and, if Italy continues to fail to fulfil its obligations, to bring an action before the European Court of Justice?

Reply

(19 October 1998)

The question put by the Honourable Member is linked to application of the Schengen Agreement and is therefore not within the Council's remit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Discretionary nature and transparency of public notices of access to structural funds

A number of regional authorities (for example, in the Marche Region) approve the public notices of access to funding by the Community's structural funds under objective 5b, within the framework of the Single Programme Document to be submitted to the Commission, without specifying the level of resources made available for each action.

1. Does the Commission not think that the use of this procedure undermines the principles of transparency that should govern the actions of the European Union?

2. Does the Commission not consider that citizens wishing to benefit from contributions made available under a specific measure or action have the right to know how much funding is available for the measures or actions in relation to which they have applied for funding?

3. Does the Commission not think that the procedure enabling administrations to move resources, once applications have been made, from one measure to another or from one action to another, in an entirely discretionary way, is wrong?

4. Given that such procedures undermine the principles of neutrality and transparency, does the Commission not consider it to be a bad thing that this might generate resentment and mistrust of regional and European institutions in the minds of European citizens?

5. What steps does the Commission intend to take to solve these problems?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

The Commission believes that the procedures for using the Structural Funds must be as transparent as possible. In the case of the single programming documents (SPDs) for Objective 5(b) in particular, the total budget allocated to each measure is recorded in the programme; it thus constitutes information in the public domain and is available to the citizen. The Monitoring Committee can revise the budget amounts but any change has to be approved by Commission decision.

With a view to subsidiarity and to avoid excessive rigidity in implementation, provision is not made in the Objective 5(b) SPDs to allocate funding below the measure level - the base on which the programme rests. Such allocation, where appropriate, is the exclusive responsibility of the authority responsible for implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2567/98 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Respite and shared care for disabled adults



Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0116



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council (1 September 1998) Subject: Respite and shared care for disabled adults Could the Council please clarify the following points about respite and shared care for disabled adults in the EU. What EU regulations relate to the standards for respite and shared care for disabled adults across Europe? What regulations exist for standards in day care facilities for disabled adults? And finally, how does the standard of provision compare between Member States? Reply (22 October 1998) The Council would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no legislation at Community level in the fields to which his question refers. The Commission has not submitted any proposals on that subject to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Euro coins - Ecofin meeting of 6 July 1998

The press release issued following the meeting of the Ecofin Council referred to above states that: "Ministers were also informed by Commissioner de Silguy of problems raised by the European associations of the visually handicapped and of the industry of vending machines concerning the technical specifications of the 50 and 10 euro coins (difficulties distinguishing these coins from others). In the light of these concerns Ministers invited the Commission to present a proposal to modify the regulation of 2 May 1998 on the technical specifications of euro coins accordingly".

1. What is the total cost of manufacturing and melting down these coins?

2. What provision was made for consulting European associations of the visually handicapped and the vending machine industry prior to the decision on the technical specifications of these coins, and what was the outcome of that consultation?

3. Is the Commission satisfied with the arrangements and procedures for the launch of euro notes and coins, given this situation and bearing in mind previous disputes such as those related to the symbols to be displayed on the notes and coins?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

The adoption of Regulation (EC) 975/98(1) on technical specifications of euro coins had been preceded by an intensive consultation process which involved all user groups including the European vending association (EVA) and the European blind union (EBU). The problems recently raised by those two associations only appeared after development by the mint directors of the detailed technical specifications necessary for production and based on the Council Regulation, and after testing of the first samples issuing from the first production runs.

The implications of the changes envisaged will be relatively limited, given that no Member State has yet started producing or buying blanks for the 50 cent coins and only France has produced a limited quantity of 10 cent coins (0,1 % of the total number of coins to be produced). Moreover the modification of the specifications of 10 cent coins will not affect the specifications of the blanks needed for those coins, allowing therefore use of the blanks already purchased or produced for this purpose.

The Commission believes that the improvements of the system will contribute to ensure the acceptance of the new coinage system by the European citizens. The changes envisaged have been established in consultation with the EVA, EBU, consumers organisations and the mint directors and have their agreement.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Neutrality of Commission officials

On 11 March 1998 the head of the Commission representation in Vienna, Mr Wolfgang Streitenberger, made a statement in a commercial advertisement in which he promoted the "Wirtschaftsblatt" newspaper, referring to its competence in reporting European policy in the following words: "More and more economic decisions are being taken in Brussels. Comprehensive and rapid information on these decisions is becoming ever more important. With the Wirtschaftsblatt you can build up your store of information on a daily basis."

1. In the highly competitive Austrian media world, how can this promotional commitment by the Commission be reconciled with the principle of neutrality of Commission officials?

2. Was Mr Streitenberger, who was clearly acting in his official capacity, committing himself on the Commission's behalf?

3. What measures does the Commission propose to take in this connection?

4. How does the Commission reconcile this action by its representative with its new code of conduct?

5. Does the Commission consider that, after this unilateral commitment, its representative in Vienna can still continue to represent its interests in other competing printed media?

6. Will the Commission also promote other Austrian printed media which provide intensive reporting of EU matters?

7. When, for example, will the head of the Commission representation in Vienna, Mr Wolfgang Streitenberger, also promote subscription to the "Neue Freie Zeitung", whose reporting on European issues can also be highly recommended?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The head of the Commission's Representation in Austria did not give a statement in the non-party-aligned, independent Austrian daily Wirtschaftsblatt on his own initiative but on invitation. Since 15 January 1997, 207 Austrian opinion leaders have given statements in similar vein.

The same kind of statements would be given on invitation via any other media which are correctly and objectively reporting on European integration and Commission policies.

The attitude of the Director of the Commission's representative office in Austria is in no way at odds with the public service ethic of the code of conduct for Commission officials or the terms of the Staff Regulations which the code is designed to reflect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2233/98

by MaLou Lindholm (V) to the Council

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Fermented herring

From 1 July 1998, fermented herring will be covered by the same rules that apply to other fish products in the EU, which means that it may not be kept in old wooden barrels, as has been done since the 16th century, if it is to be sold in food shops, nor may it be handled on premises with wooden floors, such as old boathouses. These rules will affect a one thousand year old industry and tradition in Sweden, making the situation particularly difficult for small local producers. The EU talks of subsidiarity and not interfering in details but does the exact opposite.

Does the Council believe that such detailed regulation is consistent with subsidiarity? If not, does it intend to block the directive on fermented herring?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Mrs Ben Salem, a prisoner of conscience in Tunisia

Amnesty International has drawn attention to the sentence handed down in Tunisia on Mrs Ben Salem, the wife of Mr M. Barek, a refugee granted asylum in the Netherlands.

Last November Mrs Ben Salem was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment, accused of being a member of an organisation inciting hatred and violence and of illegally attempting to leave Tunisia. On appeal the sentence was extended to two years and nine months.

Amnesty International regards Mrs Ben Salem, who has never used violence or encouraged others to use violence, as a prisoner of conscience.

Is the Commission prepared to seek information about Mrs Ben Salem from the Tunisian authorities and to urge her release so that she can join her husband in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1998)

In its usual diplomatic contacts with the Tunisian authorities the Commission will continue to raise allegations of individual cases of human rights violations, including that brought to its attention by the Honourable Member. Such contacts are held jointly with the Member States, and governed by the Barcelona Declaration and the Association Agreement between the Community and Tunisia.

It should also be pointed out that inter-parliamentary meetings between the Parliament and the Tunisian parliament play a crucial role, in the light of growing contacts between the two on issues relating to democratisation and the promotion of human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/98

by Claudio Azzolini (PPE) , Guido Podestà (PPE) , Antonio Tajani (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Restoration of justice and the rule of law in Italy

In an interview given to the magazine "America Oggi", the Milanese Public Prosecutor, PierCamillo Davigo, expressed serious doubts as to the political legitimacy of Mr Silvio Berlusconi's appointment at that time as Italian Prime Minister. The views expressed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor of Milan give the impression that the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office is a political counterweight, foreshadowing conflicts discrediting and destabilizing the Establishment.

For some time now the European Parliament has been urging, by a large majority, the need to separate the various judicial careers precisely in order to avoid incidents such as those revealed through the activities of some of the Italian Public Prosecutor's Offices.

Can the Community Institutions rapidly take all the appropriate urgent measures within their powers necessary to ensure that the rule of law is reestablished within the Italian judicial departments and to penalize and prevent the continuation or repetition of the serious incidents mentioned above which are an infringement of the fundamental rights and guarantees of European citizens and a clear sign that the criminal justice system is being used for political purposes?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The question of the Honourable Member seems to suggest that the accustions by the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office against Mr Berlusconi may upset the balance between the judiciary and the executive power in the Italian Republic. This could be seen as an infringement of the traditional separation of powers which is inherent in the constitutional system of Italy and the other Community Member States. In the present state of Community law the maintenance of the separation of powers is a matter for each Member State. The European Union does not have the power to interfere in the constitutional systems of its Member States, except to the extent necessary to uphold the supremacy of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: EU human rights projects

The European Union participates in many projects to promote human rights and democracy. The provision of information about the projects implemented has been very sluggish.

What will the Commission do to inform Parliament about them more swiftly? What projects were implemented in early 1998, and what funds were used for this purpose?

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

(23 September 1998)

The Commission tries to ensure that the use of the Community budget in general and the financial instruments directly related to human rights in particular is as transparent as possible.

It draws up annual reports on the implementation of the declaration on human rights and democracy, schemes in developing countries and other activities financed by Chapter B7-70. Parliament has examined these reports and, with Mr Imbeni's report, contributed considerably to improving activities in this area.

Specific details of headings B7-7040 and B7-707 are provided at the close of each financial year. A report on their use, accompanied by a full list of the associations, non-governmental organisations and other bodies that have received grants and the exact amount of such grants, is sent to the President of Parliament and the chairman of the relevant committee.

Details are not yet available for the first half of this year. Even if they were, they would not be meaningful, given that all activities financed from budget headings with no legal basis have been temporarily suspended in the wake of Judgment C/106-96 of the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/98

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Action to preserve the Monastery of St Andrew in occupied Cyprus

According to recent reports, the historic Monastery of St Andrew in the Turkish-occupied sector of Cyprus has fallen into a dire state of repair due to being completely abandoned and the failure to carry out necessary maintenance work.

This information is also confirmed by reports in the Turkish Cypriot press (the newspaper Kibris), which describe the state of the monastery as very poor and point out that it is in immediate need of repair.

What action can the Commission take to remedy the unacceptable state of the island's cultural heritage?

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

(13 November 1998)

The Commission is aware of the state of the Monastery of Saint Andrew in northern Cyprus. For the time being, however, the Turkish Cypriot authorities refuse to have any dealings with EU representatives, and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community broke off bi-communal contacts at the end of last year. This rules out any operation in northern Cyprus and the Commission is therefore unable to consider specific heritage conservation measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Environmental crime

The Presidency-in-Office has declared that the fight against organised crime will be a key area of its programme. It maintains that the threat posed needs to be tackled through individual and joint action.

The conclusions of the Cardiff Summit noted that environmental crime was a serious, disturbing matter whose effects often extended beyond national borders. The Council was consequently duty-bound to take steps.

What practical steps will the Council take to discharge that duty?

What particular forms will those measures take?

How will the measures affect criminal prosecution in the Member States?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

The Meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union held on 28th and 29th May 1998 highlighted, at the initiative of the Danish Minister of Justice, the problems associated with environmental crime. Further, the discussion at the Cardiff Summit in June 1998 concluded that serious environmental crime was a grave problem, often with cross border effects.

Within the Council, the Multi Disciplinary Group on organised crime is in the course of implementing a multi faceted Action plan which aims effectively to prevent and repress those forms of criminal activity which threaten the organisation and structure of civilised society. In recent months the Multi Disciplinary Group has considered a paper submitted by the Danish delegation relating specifically to the problem of serious environmental crime, and consideration is now being given to the best way of pursuing the particular issues raised in this document.

The Austrian Presidency lists the fight against international crime as one of the main objectives of its Presidency, and action in this area will take place, in whatever form that criminality presents itself.

It should be noted additionally that within the Council of Europe work is continuing on a draft Convention on Environmental Crime. The Member States of the European Union have actively participated in this work. It is expected that this instrument will shortly be opened for signature.