ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Notification requirement

Commissioner Van Miert informed the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy on 26 May 1998 that the Member States were failing to comply with the notification requirement with growing frequency. It is understood that some Member States have called in this context for the procedural rules to be so changed that aid would be deemed to have been approved if the Commission did not detect a failure to comply with the notification requirement within two months.

The Commission is therefore asked:

1. In which Member States has it detected a frequent failure to comply with the notification requirement?

2. Which Member States have taken the view that, if the Commission does not detect a failure to comply with the notification requirement within a given period, the matter should be regarded as closed?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take in this context?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

There were more non-notified state aid cases in 1997 than in 1996. 91 out of 641 cases (14 %) registered by the Commission in 1996 were non-notified, compared with 140 out of 655 cases (21 %) in 1997. A particularly high proportion of non-notified aid measures concerned Germany (30 %), Greece (56 %), Ireland (40 %), Italy (17 %) Austria (16 %) and the United Kingdom (46 %).

No Member State is of the opinion that non-notified aid should be considered as approved, if the Commission does not detect the violation of the notification obligation within two months.

The Commission systematically orders the recovery of aids which were not notified and are not compatible with the common market. It thereby exerts pressure on Member States to notify aid in the interest of their industry. In the absence of notification the enterprises concerned risk having to repay the aid, which would impede sound assessment of investment. Creditors therefore also have an interest in legal certainty with regard to state aids. Further measures do not appear to be required or appropriate in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/98

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Measures to support beekeeping

Despite the increase in the number of beekeepers, beekeeping is still insufficiently regulated and is often left to the generosity and courage of private operators who are forced to operate without incentives or technical guidelines.

In some countries it is not considered to be an agricultural activity since it is not necessarily related to ownership or possession of land, so that beekeepers are penalized from a fiscal, legal and economic point of view.

What Community initiatives have been or are to be taken to revive such an active sector of European agriculture that is heavily penalized despite the increasing demand for honey?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Council recognised the importance of the beekeeping sector in July 1997, adopting, at the proposal of the Commission, Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 Council Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey on general application rules for the actions aiming at the improvement of production and of the marketing of honey(1).

The detailed rules on the national programmes aimed by the Council Regulation are fixed by the Commission at Regulation (EC) 2300/97(2), which has been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 758/98 of 3 April 1998(3). The national programmes were approved by the Commission in March 1998.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997.

(2) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997.

(3) OJ L 105, 4.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1719/98

by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Financial aid to alleviate the effects of the Doñana disaster

In view of the dreadful consequences of the Doñana disaster in both the surrounding area and the park itself, only speedy, coordinated action backed up by heavy financial investment can mitigate the catastrophic effects which have already been produced and which will continue to be produced in the short, medium and long term.

While responsibilities are being clarified and initial emergency measures taken, both public administrations and those directly responsible must provide the means necessary to minimize the disaster. The Commission, by virtue of two of its directives, on protection for birds and for natural habitats, must guarantee and ensure the conservation of Doñana park and thus help to alleviate the consequences of the ecological disaster which has occurred.

1. Has the Commission gathered all the information necessary to take up a clear position on this disaster?

2. Will the Commission, as guarantor of environmental protection, provide financial aid to alleviate the disastrous consequences of the bursting of the Aznalcóllar dam?

3. What criterion will the Commission follow in granting financial aid?

4. Might such aid be immediate?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

The Commission has kept in close touch with the Spanish authorities since news of the disaster emerged. During an information meeting held in Brussels on 12 May 1998, the Director general of nature conservation and the President of Spain's national centre for scientific research informed the Commission of the steps taken to limit and repair the damage caused by the accident. Supplementary information has since been sent to the Commission concerning the measures applied to treat the contaminated waters and collect the toxic material. The process of collecting information is continuing and contacts with the Spanish authorities have been organised to this end.

The zone in the proximity of the Donana park which was struck by the disaster is eligible for the intervention of the European regional development fund (ERDF) under objective 1. The Commission recently invited the Spanish authorities to reflect on the possibility of modifying the interventions currently co-financed under the ERDF with a view to redirecting any funds released to counter the negative effects of the accident in the zone affected. The Commission has also proposed the co-financing of a technical assistance project aimed at deepening the analysis of the effects of the accident in order to guide Community action in the medium to long term.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/98

by Thierry Jean-Pierre (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Purchase of D3 - Loan

Some months ago, the Commission reminded Belgium of its obligations in connection with the construction of the Flemish Parliament, undertaken despite the failure to comply with the Community directives applicable to public contracts.

Does the Commission intend to be equally stringent in defending Community law with respect to the European Parliament, which has approached Société Espace Léopold (SEL) - a legal shell safeguarding the interests of Belgian and French banks - and commissioned it to take out a loan of ECU 525 million and BF 7 billion on the European Parliament's behalf, to enable the latter to purchase the D3 building complex from SEL itself, although no notice of invitation to tender has been published in the OJEC?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

The directives on public procurement(1) apply to contracting entities which are defined as "the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or bodies governed by public law". The European institutions, as follows from this definition, are not considered to be contracting entities under these directives.

However, the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1997(2) provides that every European institution meets the same obligations as those falling upon the contracting authorities of the Member States on the basis of the public procurement directives. Thus, the European institutions apply the rules of these directives, which are completed by a set of additional rules. For instance, contracts to rent houses and offices (subject not covered by the public procurement directives) and a whole range of contracts the value of which does not exceed the threshold of the public procurement directives, are awarded by special procedures preceded by calls for competitions. Notices are published in the supplement to the Official journal.

It is of course up to each institution to take its own decisions in these matters.

(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts; OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts; OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2) Article 56 of the Financial Regulation of 21.12.1977, OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. Modified for the last time by Regulation No 2335/95 of 18.9.1995, OJ L 240, 7.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council

(31 March 1998)

Subject: Chemical arsenal in the Baltic

The existence of a chemical arsenal in the Baltic is a fact, and the threat it represents in ecological, economic and human terms is colossal. The 302 000 tonnes of mustard gas and other poisonous substances concerned are the bulk of Germany's World War II chemical arsenal; 35 000 tonnes were thrown into the sea in drums and metal containers by the Soviets, while the USA and UK loaded the remainder into decommissioned ships which were then sunk. Pi crates are also present, and these highly explosive substances greatly increase the risk of a chemical disaster. To tackle this situation, Russia is offering not only its specialists and technology, but also an international cooperation programme which it claims could resolve the problem in four years.

Is the Council aware of the gravity of the situation? What has the Council decided to do to solve the problem of the chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic? Does the Council intend to respond to the Russian offer and implement joint action?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council is aware of the problem of the chemical weapons dumped in the sea after the second World War but has never raised the question of the chemical arsenal in the Baltic Sea. The question has however been examined in the context of the Helsinki Convention to which the European Community is party.

After detailed discussion of the question, the Helsinki Commission agreed that to leave the chemical weapons in question where they were posed much less of a threat than any recovery operation using currently available techniques.

The Russian Federation has not supplied any documents giving its assessment of the danger posed by this situation, nor has it defined the content of its proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/98

by Per Stenmarck (PPE) to the Council

(16 March 1998)

Subject: Alcohol and safety on Europe's roads

The number of fatal accidents on Member States' roads is very high, with somewhere in the region of 45 000 people killed every year. Drink driving is a major contributory factor. What steps is the Commission prepared to take to lower the permitted alcohol limit for drivers?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the need to improve road safety in order to reduce the number of road accident victims, concerns which it expressed in the conclusions adopted at its meeting on 17 and 18 June 1997 concerning road safety, with particular reference to the Commission communication entitled "Road safety in the European Union - the programme for the years 1997-2001".

With particular regard to the problem of drink driving, the Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the signing on 18 June 1998 by representatives of the Fifteen Member States of the Convention on Driving Disqualifications. Implementation of this Convention will give Union-wide effect to decisions imposing disqualification from driving taken further to a number of offences, notably driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other substances likely to affect or diminish the mental and physical abilities of a driver.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the "Education and Initial Vocational Training" programme in Greece

The Commission is reported to have proposed to the monitoring committee that funding for activities within the framework of the operational programme "Education and Initial Vocational Training" in Greece should be cut. What scale of cuts was proposed for each subprogramme? Why has the Commission proposed these cuts?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

At the last meeting of the monitoring committee of the operational programme "Education and initial training", held in Athens on 7 May 1998, the Commission proposed the scaling down of the programme in question. Although it was not specified how each sub-programme should be scaled down, it is worth noting that sub-programme 2 (initial training) is advancing well and almost on target as far as European social fund credits take-up rate is concerned (47 % at the end of March 1998). The respective figures for the other sub-programmes are 20 % (secondary education); 23 % (tertiary education) and 16 % (administrative modernisation of the education system).

Taking into consideration that the present programming period is rapidly coming to an end and all financial commitments have to be undergone by 31 December 1999, that the programme's absorption rate amounts to 29 % and about 1 350 MECU remain still unused, that it is not realistic to expect such a dramatic increase in the take-up rate in the coming years, and that implementing structures and mechanisms are weak, the Commission proposed the above scaling down in order to ensure the full and timely use of European social fund credits in Greece.

This should be seen against the background that Greece is the only Member State where no mid-term evaluation and review of the present programmes have taken place for the European social fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1686/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Position of business organizations in social dialogue

Representatives of workers and employers' organizations participate, in a spirit of dialogue, in the formation of EU social legislation. With regard to employment in Europe, however, small and medium-sized enterprises have a key position and their point of view on the reform of employment legislation is therefore an important one, though one which is often neglected. It is particularly short-sighted to adopt legislation which is likely to make it more difficult for firms to create jobs.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that European business organizations are regarded in future as a fourth full partner in the dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 1998)

All organisations listed in Annex I of the Commission communication "Adapting and promoting the social dialogue at European level"(1), have a full right to participate in the main fields of social dialogue: information, consultation and negotiation. As for participation in the standing committee on employment, the Commission has suggested to the Council that it extends participation to the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Europe (UNICE), Conseil européen des entreprises publiques (CEEP), European Union of Crafts and small and medium-sized entreprises (UEAPME), Comité intersyndical des organisations professionnelles du personnel agricole (COPA), EUROCOMMERCE, European trade union confederation (ETUC) and Centre européen du Commerce (CEC) in order to have a political dialogue with the appropriate level of participants.

Among the 29 organisations which fulfil the necessary representativeness criteria, there are several representing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including UEAPME, UNICE, EUROCOMMERCE and COPA. All these organisations have the possibility to enter into negotiations inside or outside the framework of the agreement on social policy (ASP) annexed to the EC Treaty. The Commission emphasises in the new communication the need to respect the autonomy of the social partners in their choice of negotiating partner and it cannot therefore force anybody to the negotiating table. This approach has recently been confirmed by the Court of first instance in its judgement of 17 July 1998 in case T-135/96, dismissing a legal challenge against the parental leave directive negotiated and adopted under the ASP process.

In the above-mentioned communication, however, the Commission has again urged the social partners to find a compromise in order to ensure the best possible representativeness of European agreements. The Commission is well aware of the importance of SMEs for employment and their role in job creation. Their specific concerns and the opportunities they provide must be taken into account.

(1) COM(98) 322.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/98

by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Human rights violations in Mexico - Chiapas massacre

Is the Commission not concerned that, five months after the horrific massacre in Acteal, in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, the instigators of the crime have not yet been brought to justice and, furthermore, that this failure could lead to other atrocities occurring in the region?

Will the Commission urge the Mexican Government to fulfil its avowed commitment to prosecute the instigators of the crime and ensure an end to the paramilitary presence in Chiapas, as called for by the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 1998 (B4-0056/98)?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2044/98 and E-2045/98 given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

The Commission took careful note of the report which accompanied Parliament's assent to the Interim Agreement with Mexico in May of this year.

The provisions which for the first time explicitly label adherence to democratic principles and human rights "essential elements" are regarded by the Commission as key components of the new Agreement, which marked a milestone when it entered into force on 1 July. With it, the Community has acquired a clear, contractual and legal foundation for giving greater consideration to these matters and for contributing more effectively and constructively to improving Mexico's situation in this regard.

Where monitoring of respect for human rights and involving non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is concerned, the political weight of this principle was translated into action even before the Agreement was signed. An exchange of views on the situation in Chiapas was the major focus of the meeting held with the Mexican Foreign Minister in Panama City in February. Moreover, at Parliament's initiative, a public hearing was organised in Brussels in March to provide representatives of civil society in Mexico (including a wide range of NGOs) with an opportunity to put their points of view over to the public.

Independently of these considerations, the Commission will continue to use all available means to remind the Mexican authorities of the importance which the Union attaches to ensuring that all those responsible for the massacre are identified and brought to justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/98

by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Control of major accident hazards

Recent accidents at a waste treatment plant at Killamarsh in my constituency, owned by SARP UK, a subsidiary of Vivendi, have aroused widespread concern both in the village itself and in the neighbouring conurbation of Sheffield. Local people wish to know how the plant in question could be brought to relocate, removing potentially hazardous operations away from any centre of population.

What legal instruments exist to facilitate such a removal?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Community legislation on waste does not contain any provisions concerning the minimum distance between a waste installation and residential areas. Such a provision might be introduced for landfills by a new directive(1) which is at present being discussed in Council and in the Parliament.

However, Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(2) (so-called Seveso II Directive), which will enter into mandatory application from 3 February 1999, contains a new provision on land-use planning (Article 12). This provision reflects the need, following the Bhopal accident in India in 1984, for the land-use planning implications of major-accident hazards to be taken into account in the regulatory process. The inclusion of this provision can be regarded as a major step forward in the process of major accident mitigation.

The Directive aims, firstly to prevent major accidents and secondly to limit consequences for man and the environment through controls on the siting of new establishments, modifications to existing establishments and new developments such as transport links, locations frequented by the public and residential areas in the vicinity of existing establishments. In the long term, land-use planning policies will ensure that appropriate distances between hazardous establishments and residential areas are maintained. Where such establishments already exist in the vicinity of residential areas, the Seveso II Directive calls for consideration of additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people, in the context of application of the above mentioned controls.

The Commission, in close co-operation with the Member States, has started developing guidance for the practical implementation of this provision in the Member States. The guidance is likely to be published during 1998.

(1) OJ C 156, 24.5.1997.

(2) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.