ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2684/99

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Air transport

In the view of the Commission, what conditions must regional inter-island flights fulfil for the purposes of the public service obligation declaration? In general, what are the Commission's views on this type of declaration?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

Under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1), a Member State may impose a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services to an airport serving a peripheral or development region in its territory or on a thin route to any regional airport in its territory, any such route being considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located.

The services to the islands are particularly well suited to treatment under those provisions. Indeed, the islands frequently emerge as peripheral or development regions. In addition the traffic to them is often of low density. Finally, the routes in question are as a general rule considered to be vital to the economic development of the islands in question.

Under those provisions France, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have imposed public service obligations on several routes serving islands in the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.12.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/99

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Structural Fund programme approvals made subject to area notifications pursuant to the Flora, Fauna and Habitats (FFH) and Bird Protection Directive

By letter of 23 June 1999 to the Permanent Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany in the European Union, Commission Members Mrs Monika Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Ritt Bjerregaard pointed out that, in application of Article 12 of the Structural Fund Framework Regulation, it might well be impossible for German Structural Fund programmes for the 2000 to 2006 assistance period to be approved by the European Commission.

Does the Commission consider it lawful and reasonable in this connection for the approval of Structural Fund programmes and projects submitted by Germany to be made subject to whether or not area notifications pursuant to the Flora, Fauna and Habitats (FFH) and Bird Protection Directive have been submitted in their entirety?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1999)

As the Honourable Member will be aware, the finalisation of the list of sites of Community importance (Natura 2000), including areas related to both Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(2) was supposed to be complete by June 1998, but has been delayed because several Member States have so far failed to provide their corresponding proposals (deadline was June 1995). The lack of identification of respective sites affected by structural funds operations has resulted in problems and delays in the implementation of the current programmes. Moreover, at this time there are several Court proceedings pending against several Member States, as regards insufficient transmission of proposed protected sites.

In view of the delayed designation of protected sites, and in order to ensure that the Commission can fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty (Article 6 ex Article 3c) and Articles 12 and 41 (2) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural funds(3), all Member States were reminded by letter of 23 June 1999 of their duty to ensure conformity of new programmes and projects with the requirements of the Habitats and Birds directives. In the case of some Member States, there remains a serious lack of information on protected sites which might jeopardise the Commission's assessment whether programmes are in conformity with Community law as required by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999.

In any case the Commission will assess each plan or programme as to its individual content related to the requirements of the Habitats and Birds directives. Member States must in the respective plan or programme, give a firm commitment that any possible negative impact on sites protected or to be protected under Natura 2000 will be properly assessed and appropriate measures taken.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: The Greek Shipping Register

Having been assessed by the relevant European Union committee, the Greek Shipping Register was recognised as the organisation responsible for ship inspection and survey for a three-year period in Greece alone, since it fulfilled the solely qualitative criteria of Directive 94/57/EC(1) on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations.

Can the Commission indicate the results of the assessment of the Greek Shipping Register? Does it consider the results of the quality assessment to be satisfactory? In what way does it fall short of the quantitative criteria? Is it aware of any complaints against the Greek Shipping Register? What are its general observations?

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

The assessment of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (HRS) was carried out from 17 to 20 March 1997 in order to verify whether the Greek classification society met the criteria laid down in the Annex to Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. The assessment proved that HRS did not fulfil the so-called quantitative criteria (1 000 ocean-going vessels over 100 gross tonnage (GT) in its class and 100 exclusive surveyors). As far as the qualitative criteria are concerned, it was assessed that the Greek organisation met them with the exception of some non-conformities which the Commission requested HRS to remedy. HRS implemented all the recommendations put forward by the Commission immediately after the assessment. Therefore the Commission was satisfied that HRS met the qualitative criteria.

At the time of the inspection, HRS had only 941 ocean-going vessels over 100 GT in its class and 60 exclusive surveyors. Following a different calculation method suggested by HRS, the number of exclusive surveyors would be 86, still not meeting the figure of 100 required by the Directive.

In March 1997 a complaint alleging HRS did not meet some of the criteria of the Directive was lodged with the Commission. The non-conformities alleged in the complaint coincided to a large extent with the non-conformities noted during the Commission's assessment. As mentioned above, all the non-conformities were remedied by HRS immediately after the assessment and therefore the Commission decided to close the complaint.

On 22 April 1998 HRS was recognised pursuant to Article 4 (3) of the Directive for a period of three years during which HRS can only work on behalf of the Greek administration. At present HRS is and will continue to be monitored by the committee set up under the Directive with a view to taking the final decision on its full recognition.

All the classification societies recognised at Community level are continuously monitored by the committee to ensure that they maintain high quality standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/99

by Gérard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: European campaign against violence against women

In the context of the Daphne initiative and the European campaign against violence against women, which resulted from Parliament's 1997 resolution Violence against women (A4-0250/97(1)), could the Commission state:

1. which projects have been given aid in 1999, particularly in Belgium,

2. whether it considers these projects have had a real impact on violence against women,

3. if applicable, what does it intend to do to improve the effectiveness of these two initiatives, and

4. which campaign projects have already been drawn up and approved for 2000?

(1) OJ C 304, 6.10.1997, p. 55.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2000)

As part of the European campaign to heighten public awareness about violence against women, the Commission has supported the following projects in Belgium: a national project involving the Council of French-speaking Women and a transnational project carried out by the European Women's Lobby.

It is not possible for the Commission to evaluate at this stage the impact of these projects, since they are still in progress. The European campaign began in March 1999 and will end in May 2000. A closing conference is to be organised in collaboration with the Portuguese Presidency in Lisbon from 4 to 6 May 2000. In the course of this conference, a report evaluating the campaign will be presented. Its results will be taken into consideration for devising any future action in this field.

The Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that, under the Daphne initiative (1997-1999), it has given assistance to 150 activities involving organisations aiming to combat violence against women, several of which are in Belgium, and that it will continue this action under the Daphne programme (2000-2003).

A list of the projects approved under this campaign is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: Code of Conduct on arms sales

Operative Provision 4 of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports states that Member States will keep mldr consultations [under the code] confidential.

The British Government interprets this as including the results of such consultations (Official Report, 25 October 1999, column 738).

Does the Council as a whole agree, or do individual Member States have different practices as concerns the openness of the results of these consultations? If so, what are they?

Does a list exist of what arms were exported by a second Member State after the first had declined an export licence?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

It is for Member States to decide how to interpret the confidentiality provisions of the Code of Conduct, bearing in mind that, in case of refusal, notifications communicated under the Code must remain confidential and that the fundamentally bilateral nature of the consultation process must be preserved.

It is not for the Council to comment on Member States' practices in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Decision on an unresolved case concerning state aids

The Spanish press has published information taken from the Ministry for Industry's Boletín de Energía Eléctrica (electricity newsletter), stating that electricity companies have already received a total of PTA 387 223 m in the form of state aids. Spanish consumers are paying for this through higher electricity bills.

In reply to an earlier question of mine, the Commission reported that it had not considered it appropriate to rule that payment of the aid be suspended, given, the absence of a pre-existing framework, the complexity of the issue and discussions currently taking place. Meanwhile, consumers continue to foot the bill for what is in principle considered unlawful state aid, and companies have received approximately 30 % of the total amount, which will be difficult to recover, should a decision be made to that effect.

Does the Commission agree that the time has now come to rule that payments be suspended?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

The Commission feels that, should it prove necessary, it could recover the aid already paid under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(1). For the moment, and for the same reasons set out in the answer to written question E-2681/99(2) by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for exercising the power conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2) See page 191.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2202/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Commission initiatives on the rights of consumers entering into contracts with airlines

Liberalisation of the air transport sector has had significant benefits for consumers, most importantly a greater choice of carrier and cheaper prices. However, if not implemented properly, deregulation can frequently have other, negative effects as a result of congestion in the skies and inadequate airport infrastructures. Passengers are affected by delays, which result in missed flights and other inconvenience. When such situations arise, the airlines hide behind the small print in the ticket purchase agreement to evade their responsibility.

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to establish the airlines' responsibility and ensure that passengers receive compensation when airlines do not adhere to their timetables or when their luggage is lost?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Commission is about to begin a major consultation on air passenger rights in the Community with a view to making a full assessment of the current situation and developing a new strategic approach to this issue in the coming year. A consultation paper will be launched in the near future. It will seek the views of both industry and consumers on delays and baggage, as well as a much wider range of other issues. Action will be taken in the light of the reactions received. One specific action on giving information to passengers has already been agreed for launch in the coming months the mandatory publication of punctuality indicators for airlines and airports.

There is already some provision in Community law for compensation for delayed passengers who are late arriving at their destination because the airline overbooked the aircraft. Such passengers are entitled to immediate compensation of up to 300 under Council Regulation EEC No 295/91 of 4 Febraury 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport(1). A proposal(2) to amend the Regulation, improving the level of compensation and extending it to cover passengers who are delayed because an airline cancels their flight, is close to agreement. Extending compensation any further than this would require careful consideration since a large proportion of delays are caused by factors that are genuinely beyond the airlines' control, notably air traffic delays.

As far as baggage is concerned, the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sets low maximum limits of approximately 17 per kilo on airlines' liability for any loss or damage during international journeys. The new Montreal Convention of May 1999 raises this limit to approximately 1 300 per passenger. Compensation in excess of these limits is only possible where the passenger has agreed a higher figure in advance with the airline and paid any extra charges needed to cover additional insurance.The Commission will make proposals for Community ratification and implementation of the new Montreal Convention at the beginning of 2000.

(1) OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(2) COM(98) 580 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Key features of the work test

What administrative guidance is issued in each Member State to officials responsible for administering the work test, i.e. the test of whether an unemployed person is available and looking for work prior to obtaining benefit? Please describe the key features of these tests for each Member State, particularly the level of earnings compared with previous earnings at which the unemployed can reject an available job offer, the test of whether the individual has looked for work and the test of availability for work. In addition, describe over what period, once a claimant has been accepted for payment of benefit, this work test is reapplied.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The definition and management of social benefit schemes fall within the responsibility and legal competence of the Member States.

The Commission has undertaken, together with the Member States, an analysis of reforms and the functioning of Member States' labour market policies in the context of the employment strategy. The definition and implementation of administrative procedures relating to work

tests and the availability for work among the unemployed should be consistent with the preventive and activation approaches in the employment guidelines(1). The public employment services play a significant role in administering and developing preventive and employability-enhancing policies overall.

The array of regulations and administrative procedures applicable to work tests in each Member State is complex. An overview of some key features of different practices of the work test in selected Member States can be found in the recent report by the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) Making work pay: the role of eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits (1999). The Employment Observatory and its regular publications Mutual information system on employment policies (MISEP) and Community system of documentation on employment (SYSDEM(2)), operated by the Commission in collaboration with the Member States, is another useful source of detailed information on key features of current regulations and policy reforms in the Member States in the labour market and related social benefit

(1) OJ C 69, 12.3.1999.

(2) http://www.ias-berlin.de/ias/first/1english.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: More stringent intervention criteria for cereals

The moisture content is to be reduced once again from 15 % to 14,5 %. For decades the limit value was 16 %. In our maritime coastal climate with permanently high air humidity, under normal weather conditions the 16 % limit is possible only on a few days in Summer in the harvesting period. A glance at the harvesting conditions in previous years shows that under these conditions cereals could only have been sold in exceptional Summers. In the last seven years it would only have been possible to market the harvested crop on three occasions without artificial drying.

What stage has the procedure reached?

What are the specific reasons prompting the Commission to tighten up the intervention criteria?

Is the Commission aware that in climatically unfavourable regions coastal areas, for example the intervention criteria can only be satisfied at considerable technical cost, and hence with significantly higher production costs?

Is the Commission aware that if the criteria are made more stringent farmers in the regions described will have to suffer permanent disadvantages and losses of income, even though their product is in no way inferior?

Is the Commission planning a regionally graduated approach or a hardship scheme to compensate for climatic disadvantages?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission's purpose in launching a debate on the minimum quality of cereals offered for intervention was to bring cereal stocks more into line with (particularly export) demand. Discussion started in October 1999 and is currently continuing.

It should be borne in mind that the moisture content limit (currently 14,5 %) is set with a view to ensuring satisfactory intervention storage over a relatively long period. Dispensations up to 15 % have been granted during the last few marketing years.

The open domestic and export markets generally require lower moisture content, so that toxins do not build up and jeopardise quality.

The market accepts higher moisture content only for immediate use, or at a discount to offset the cost of drying. There are no grounds for proceeding differently with regard to intervention, which it must be remembered is not in itself a market but just a publicly-funded intermediate stage.

Regardless of region or harvest weather conditions, producers can sell their cereals provided that they satisfy the market's quality criteria if need be by drying to reduce moisture content. Climatic risk is inherent in all forms of crop production and has to be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/99

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 January 2000)

Subject: Secretariat of the Energy Charter

The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported on 20 November that the Netherlands Government is concerned at the poor management at the Energy Charter Secretariat in Brussels. A year ago the management consultancy firm of Arthur D. Little issued a report on the management of the Secretariat at the request of the then chairman of the Governmental Council of the Energy Charter, Mr Rutten.

1. What progress has been made on the Energy Charter Protocol?

2. Is the Council aware of the Arthur D. Little study on the operation of the Secretariat of the Energy Charter?

3. What is the status of this report, and when can it be made available to the Member States and the European Parliament?

4. Is it true that the Finnish Presidency has requested Mr Schütterle, Secretary-General of the Energy Charter, to communicate the report to the Member States?

5. Is it true that Germany considers it inappropriate to publish this report?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects were signed in 1994. In accordance with Article 44 of the ECT, the Treaty and the Protocol entered into force on 16 April 1998, i.e. on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification with the Portuguese Republic, acting as depositary of the Treaty.

At this stage, 40 countries have ratified the Energy Charter. As far as the European Union is concerned, all the Member States and the European Communities have ratified it.

With regard to the report drawn up by the management consultancy firm Arthur D. Little on the operation of the Secretariat of the Energy Charter, this report falls within the internal management remit of that organisation. It is therefore not for the Council to comment on whether and when the report mentioned could be made available to the Member States and the European Parliament.

However, in connection with the preparation of the last session of the Energy Charter Conference which was held in Brussels on 7 December 1999, the Finnish Presidency did express the desire to have this report. It should be noted that the Conference unanimously decided to appoint a new Secretary-General to replace Mr Schütterle. The person in question is Ms Ria Kemper, who took up her duties on 1 January 2000.