ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/97 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Protocols to European Union Conventions concerning the Court of Justice

For each Protocol to European Union Conventions under the third pillar concerning preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice, will the Council set out the date of signature, the date of publication in the Official Journal, the Member States who have so far made a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to the relevant article in the Protocol, the date on which the declaration was made, and the date of publication of this declaration in the Official Journal?

Answer (10 November 1997)

The Honourable Member will find below a list of protocols on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of conventions adopted in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.

1. Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office, signed on 24 July 1996 and published in OJ C 299, 9 October 1996.

2. Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, signed on 29 November 1996 and published in OJ C 151, 20 May 1997.

This Protocol also applies to the first and second Protocols to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests. The first Protocol was signed on 27 September 1996 and published in OJ C 313, 23 October 1996 (see Article 1 of the Protocol of 29 November 1996). The second Protocol was signed on 19 June 1997 and published in OJ C 221, 19 July 1997 (see Article 13(3) of this second Protocol).

3. Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes, signed on 29 November 1996 and published in OJ C 151, 20 May 1997.

4. Protocol on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of the Convention on the service in the Member States of the European Union of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, signed on 26 May 1997 and published in OJ C 261, 27 August 1997.

Declarations by Member States accepting the Court's jurisdiction can be found in the Official Journal containing the relevant Protocol and were made on the date of signing with the exception of a declaration by Sweden accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice for the Europol Convention, which was made on 27 March 1997 (OJ C 100, 27 March 1997).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/97 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: EU co-financing for conversion of former EU inland customs offices

One intended secondary effect of the creation of the EU internal market is that customs offices at the frontiers between Member States are now redundant. This has meant, however, that the first impressions travellers receive on seeing disused customs premises and houses at former customs frontiers are not exactly attractive.

In the course of discussion on the siting of a motorway service area in the Austrian province of Vorarlberg, the customs office at Hörbranz, Lindau, was one of the possibilities suggested.. Among the many good reasons for choosing this solution, the conversion of obsolete customs premises is an important point.

1. Has the EU already supported the conversion of customs offices and premises at the EU's former internal frontiers?

2. If so, where and by what amounts?

3. If not, can you envisage assisting such a project as a pilot?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

1. and 2. The Commission has not financed any actions specifically intended to transform redundant customs posts into buildings for other purposes, nor has it received requests to do so. Given the other calls on its budgetary resources, it has no intention of launching a new project along these lines. The Commission considers that Member States should, in managing their property, give due attention to the particular heritage represented by customs and other buildings at internal frontiers.

3. Community finance to convert such buildings for other uses may be available if the conversion is part of a Community action having broader objectives than the conservation of the building itself. Indeed, such action may benefit from financial assistance under the Community structural funds, in particular the Community initiative Interreg IIA. A project of this kind is at present carried out in the framework of the Belgian-German-Dutch operational programme 'Meuse/Maas-Rhein'. This aims at converting the former Belgian-German border crossing point facilities at Raeren-Eynatten (Belgium) / Aachen-Lichtenbusch (Germany). The estimated cost under Interreg IIA is 1.15 MECU, with a 50% cofinancing from the European regional development fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2572/97 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Infectious animal diseases brought in from neighbouring countries of the EU

1. Does the Commission agree that the increase in trade and commerce has increased the risk of infectious animal diseases being brought into the European Union from neighbouring countries, such as those of Central and Eastern Europe and the countries around the Mediterranean?

2. If so, does the Commission feel it would be useful to improve veterinary facilities in those countries in order to reduce the risk of infectious animal diseases being brought into the European Union?

3. Can the Commission indicate to what extent appropriations under PHARE and MEDA are already being used for this purpose, and is it prepared to encourage the use of such funds to control infectious diseases in countries where veterinary facilities are inadequate, as this would be in the interests of those countries themselves and of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr. Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1997)

1. In the case of non-Community countries, and in particular those referred to by the Honourable Member, the Community has armed itself with tools for preventing animal disease from being spread in the Community from imported live animals and animal products: veterinary requirements applying to imports, adoption of protective measures when necessary, and a network of border inspection posts able to make suitable checks. It is nonetheless true that the best guarantee is a high level of animal health in the exporting country. For this an effective veterinary infrastructure is essential.

2. and 3. In the framework of the Phare programme considerable technical and equipment assistance has been and is currently being made available to improve the veterinary control infrastructure in the central and eastern European countries (CEECs), both through the country programmes and on a multi-country basis.

In the light of the Commission opinions on membership, technical and investment assistance for the formal adoption of the veterinary 'acquis communautaire' and for the improvement of enforcement and control infrastructures will be intensified in the years to come.

MEDA could contribute to the financing of measures to improve veterinary infrastructure in the Mediterranean partner countries provided that such measures are included in national indicative programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC

Directive 91/271/EEC ((OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. )) seeks to limit pollution of surface water by urban effluent in order to safeguard drinking water supplies. In the last few days, pollution has been detected in the drinking water supplies of Kastoria, constituting a public health hazard.

Is there any evidence that the water was contaminated by urban effluent? What measures will the Commission take to enforce Community legislation? Does the system for collecting urban effluent in Kastoria fulfil the requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997)

In response to the Court of Justice judgment of 28 March 1996 concerning Greece's failure to comply with Article 170(1) of the EC Treaty, the Greek authorities notified the Commission of Ministerial Decision 6573/400 of 5 March 1997 as a national implementing measure incorporating into national law Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.

However, Greece has not identified sensitive areas, as it should have done before 31 December 1993. Under Article 5 of the Directive, before being discharged into sensitive areas, water must undergo more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment referred to in Article 4. Member States must ensure that appropriate treatment facilities are provided by 31 December 1998 for all discharges from urban areas with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, as is the case with the town of Kastoria.

Furthermore, the programme for the implementation of the Directive (Article 17) has not yet been drawn up as the Ministerial Decision was vague on that subject (no precise date given in the text of the Decision, whilst the Directive stipulates 31 December 1993 as the final date).

The Commission will contact the Greek authorities to request further details about the implementation of Directive 91/271/EEC in the Kastoria region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3233/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Utilization by Greece of appropriations from the Cohesion Fund

According to reports appearing in the authoritative Greek economic publication, 'FORUM' the rate of utilization of funds by Greece appears to be particularly low, for example in 1995 only 5% of appropriations earmarked for that country were used.

Over the same period, the other 'cohesion countries', Spain, Portugal and Ireland, utilized a perfectly reasonably percentage of the funds, unlike Greece, despite the fact that Greece has particularly pressing needs regarding the environment and transport infrastructures.

Can the Commission indicate the exact amount of the appropriations earmarked for Greece from the creation of the cohesion fund to the present date? What is the exact amount of the appropriations utilized to date by this country and how does it intend to allocate the cohesion fund appropriations earmarked for, but unused by Greece over the years?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The data on commitments and payments made by the Commission under the Cohesion Fund for Greece for 1993-97 are as follows (in ecus, up to 10 October 1997):

>TABLE>

It is useful to remember that:

- the overall amount of the commitments remains inside the indicative allocation provided for in the Regulation for each beneficiary Member State;

- payments are made on the basis of requests by the national authorities reflecting the state of progress of the projects financed;

- the appropriations which have been committed but not yet used are made available again and carried forward for financing new projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3117/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (9 October 1997)

Subject: Violation of the rules of democracy by the Dutch Presidency

1. Is the Council aware of the request submitted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice for the international tracing and extradition of the former dictator of Surinam, Desi Bouterse?

2. Can the Council explain why the Dutch Presidency of the Council has consistently refused, since March of this year, to answer written questions on the international tracing and extradition of Bouterse?

3. Does the Council not agree that, given the deadline of six weeks for answering written questions, the failure to answer written questions since March tabled by the undersigned and Mr Pasty and Mr Donnay constitutes a violation of the rules of democracy?

4. Does the Council realise that the questions by the undersigned and Mr Pasty and Mr Donnay were of considerable importance in the light of the obstruction on the part of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs in arranging for Bouterse to be detained in Brazil on 18 July, as a result of which débacle the Dutch government was placed in a very embarrassing position, which it could probably have avoided by answering the questions?

5. What guarantee can the Council give that the contempt expressed for the European Parliament which the Dutch Presidency has indulged in by simply not answering written questions since March, and not answering oral questions since January, can be avoided in future?

Answer (15 January 1998)

The Council wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it can only reply to questions which come within the bounds of its responsibilities. Questions dealing with a specific request for extradition, such as that to which the Honourable Member refers, are a matter solely for the Member State concerned, in this particular case the Netherlands authorities.

With respect to the time limits within which the Council replies to oral or written questions put to it by Members of the European Parliament, the deadlines quoted by the Honourable Member are not binding upon the Council, which has, however, always endeavoured to reply as promptly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3229/97 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Problems involved in obtaining refunds on agricultural products which are not consumed in full in the first importing country

As a result of the political disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union - both traditional commercial and marketing channels for European exporters of agricultural products - there has been a change in the granting of refunds. According to EU legislation, products which were imported into one constituent republic, processed there and passed on to an other constituent republic were eligible for a refund. In view of the situation today this is no longer possible, because these products are no longer registered as being used on the spot (in the importing country, regardless of constituent republic). As is the case with the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, these importing countries now use the EU customs form, which makes it explicit that the imported EU product is not consumed in full in the importing country but is exported, usually after processing.

In the past the Commission adopted transitional arrangements in similar circumstances (e.g. the accession of new EU Member States), in order to enable businesses to review their commercial relations; this was in the interests of both the EU businesses and the processing firms importing products.

1. Does the Commission agree that the situation described above creates commercial problems for importing and exporting firms?

2. Can the Commission explain why no transitional scheme has been set up following the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union?

3. Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional arrangements with retroactive effect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The Commission is aware that the political collapse of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union has posed commercial problems for Community exporters.

It therefore adopted in 1992 decisions containing transitional provisions likely to facilitate the duty of Community exporters to supply proof of importation into the new countries which emerged from the disintegration of these two federations.

The Commission does not plan to take further transitional measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2722/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Awarding of contracts for projects cofinanced by the European Union

A controversy has arisen during the debates of the Regional Assembly of Cantabria (Spain) over the system for assessing the firms submitting tenders in connection with the awarding of contracts for the first phase of the complete restoration of the bay of Santander.

Do the Commission services monitor the awarding of contracts for public works cofinanced by the European Union? Has such monitoring been carried out in the case of the above work in the bay of Santander?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997)

The Commission is not able to carry out exhaustive monitoring of all the contracts which have to be awarded in the Member States in accordance with the public procurement Directives. Effective review procedures have consequently been introduced in many Member States under Council Directive 89/665/EEC relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )) and under Directive 92/13/EEC relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. )). Companies which feel that they

have been adversely affected by a contract award procedure are thus able to take steps to put their case as quickly as possible at national level. This does not prejudice their right to lodge a complaint with the Commission itself, which may then initiate the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty against the Member State concerned.

On the specific question of public contracts relating to projects receiving Community financing, the Commission has a general monitoring role in partnership with the Member States, mainly through the Monitoring Committees. As regards the Santander Bay project, the Commission noted that the authorities had opened up the contract in question to competitive tender through the publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal ((OJ S 124, 29.6.1996. )). No particular problems encountered during the procedure have been brought to its attention. From the information at its disposal, the Commission notes that no company has reported, either to itself or at national level, that its rights might possibly have been adversely affected in the course of that procedure.

In any event, the Commission is unaware of any controversy regarding the system for assessing the firms which took part in the contract award procedure for the development of the Bay of Santander.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3446/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission (27 October 1997)

Subject: EU accession negotiations with Slovenia

On the margins of the Fifth Interparliamentary Meeting between the European Union and Slovenia, several politicians criticized the fact that Commission representative Cameron had stated at a conference that Slovenian accession to the EU would be possible only at the same time or after the accession of Poland (article under the heading 'Slovenia between Sovereignty and the Desire for Swift EU Integration' published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 13 October 1997, No 237, page 9).

If this is indeed the Commission's view, when will the European Parliament be informed about it?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

As the Commission made clear in its Agenda 2000 report and the opinions on each application for Community membership, the Community deals with each applicant on its own merits. There is no 'group' approach.

As in the past, there will be separate inter-governmental accession negotiations with each applicant. Each country will proceed at its own pace during its negotiations. The timing of the conclusion of accession negotiations with a particular applicant will depend on the complexity of the issues to be resolved and the speed with which that country overcomes the shortcomings identified in the opinion on its membership application.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/97 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Committees of experts

Can the Council state which particular working parties or committees of experts - and how many - carried out studies and specific work under the third pillar during 1995, 1996 and 1997, giving details of the participation of the various Member States in each one?

Could the Council also provide Parliament on a regular basis with the information derived from these working parties on issues on which Parliament must be consulted or draw up a report, so as to facilitate Parliament's work?

Answer (15 January 1998)

The Honourable Member will find below a table showing meetings of expert working parties within the framework of justice and home affairs cooperation during 1995, 1996 and the first half of 1997. All Member States take part in these meetings.

>TABLE>

The Presidency has kept the European Parliament regularly informed of discussions on justice and home affairs, either through its regular meetings with the Committee on Civil Liberties and the Legal Affairs Committee, or at the annual debate provided for in the third paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Links between BSE and CJD

On 1 July 1997 Britain's Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) issued a paper, 'Research into the link between BSE and nvCJD'.

The paper found that there was no evidence to refute the suggested link between BSE and CJD. But it also stated that the evidence to date was insufficient to make prove scientifically that there was a causative link between the two diseases.

Has the Commission studied the SEAC paper and, if so, is it satisfied with the scientific methodology used in its preparation?

Can the Commission give details of its own research into the links between the two diseases and of any progress achieved to date?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

The Commission is aware of the document 'research into the link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (nvCJD)' issued by the United Kingdom spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee (SEAC) on 1 July 1997. The document issued on 1 July 1997 concluded that, while the evidence accumulated favoured a conclusion that there was a link between BSE and nvCJD, it was not sufficient to be regarded as scientific proof of a causative link. The scientific methodology employed was up to date and in line with the results obtained within the Community research projects in the field.

However, 4 articles recently published (25 September 1997, The Lancet; 2 October 1997, Nature), constitute new elements on the links between BSE and nvCJD. The first two provide, for the first time, a full description of the clinical and psychiatric features of the first 14 cases of nvCJD discovered in the United Kingdom. The two others provide evidence that the same agent strain causing BSE is responsible for the development of nvCJD.

At Community level, research on BSE and CJD will continue to be implemented within the framework of the Commission action plan on human and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE), decided on 13 November 1996. This action plan intends to provide an overall approach to research in this area covering aspects from epidemiology to risk assessment, the search for diagnostic tools or therapeutic approaches and the characterization of the nature of the agent.

There have already been two specific calls for proposals. Selection of projects is subject to the formal adoption of the conciliation procedure regarding the financial complement of the 4th framework programme.

Community supported research will contribute to a full understanding of the mechanisms implicated in the development of nvCJD.