ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3048/98

by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Consequences for Finnish farmers of delays in mapping arable areas

The Finnish agriculture ministry was unable to complete the arable land register required by the EU before monitoring began for this growing season. For this reason the cross-checks on the basis of the land register were not able to start until August. The main reason for this is that the Irish firm selected on the basis of the tendering procedure which the EU requires did not have the field maps needed for the register ready in time. The problems included incorrectly drawn parcels and mis-measured areas: for example clean-felled areas were recorded as fields. There was no time to enter the farmers' corrections to the areas, and it was therefore impossible to use the maps in this spring's monitoring for subsidy purposes.

The Commission has asked Finland to double the number of farms subject to area monitoring, on the grounds that the cross-checks need to be carried out in good time. In the Commission's view, this clearly means that these checks need to be made before the selection of the farms to be monitored on the ground. The Finnish authorities do not consider that the regulations justify this demand.

Strangely enough the Commission called for increased monitoring only in July, which meant that many farms are receiving their EU subsidies much later than usual. This leads to unjustifiable economic and psychological difficulties for Finnish farmers, who have this year already suffered the worst crop failure in decades.

In the light of the above, what does the Commission propose to do to alleviate the situation for farmers in difficulties and resolve the problem for which they can in no way be held responsible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2826/98 by Mrs Heidi Hautala(1).

Compensatory payments for arable crops are normally paid between 16 October and 31 December following the harvest. The information available to the Commission suggests that the Finnish authorities will comply with this deadline. Accordingly, the Commission which is anxious to discharge its responsibility for ensuring effective checks while also ensuring that farmers receive payments within the time limits laid down, does not consider that the requested increase in on-the-spot checks will lead to a delay in payments of aid to Finnish farmers.

(1) See page 13.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4058/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: EU funds for the South-East of England government region

Will the Commission please itemise all EU funding received in the UK new South-East region since July 1994, including structural, social, LIFE, research and other assorted Community initiative funds, their destination, amounts, partners and a brief description of the projects?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3145/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: The scope for target groups to influence the implementation of Commission exchange programmes

The Commission has stressed the role of representatives of the two sides of industry in the Commission's education, youth and work experience exchange programmes for the years 2000-2006. Increasing the scope for the ultimate target groups to exert influence is one of the main elements in the development and implementation of the programmes.

How will the Commission stress democratic participation by users and openness, and involve the ultimate target groups of the programmes in the administration and realisation of the programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 1998)

The target groups referred to by the Honourable Member are fully involved in the Commission's education, training and youth programmes. The target public which will benefit from these programmes is very large. The needs and concerns of the latter may be expressed in the context of Community decision-making processes via Council and Parliamentary bodies, and at programme-management level via management committees, inter alia, in accordance with the rules on committee procedures, and via the national bodies responsible for implementation in the countries taking part in the programmes.

Moreover, with regard to the Socrates programme(1), the Commission organises regular consultation meetings with certain target groups such as European university associations or associations active in the field of education.

With regard to the Leonardo da Vinci programme(2), the social partners acting in their capacity as workers' and employers' representatives are involved in implementing the programme at two levels. They are represented at Community level on the programme committee, in accordance with the rules on committee procedures. Management structures at national level are called upon to involve the social partners in the implementation of the programme. In addition, Member States' management structures may involve other representatives of the programme's target public, in accordance with national practices.

With regard to the Youth programme(3), the active involvement of young people is at the heart of the programme. This is why young volunteers, groups of young people and youth workers themselves develop the projects funded under the programme. In addition, the Commission, on the basis of the experience gained over the past ten years, intends to involve these target groups through the Youth Forum, but also in the context of on-site visits and continuous assessment.

Finally, the Commission is also exploring other possibilities of reinforcing young people's active involvement in political and social life and in the various decision-making processes at local, national and European level.

(1) COM(98) 329 final.

(2) OJ C 309, 9.10.1998.

(3) OJ C 311, 10.10.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3454/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Standing Working Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material

In 1982, at the request of the European Parliament(1), the Commission set up a standing working group to deal with the transport of radioactive material. The Commission regularly publishes communications on the reports of that working group, the most recent of which appeared in April 1998. These communications do not, however, provide sufficient information about the matters discussed in the working group. Following the scandal concerning the transport of such material in the spring of 1998, the European Parliament repeatedly requested the Commission to forward to it the minutes of the standing working group's meetings.

1. Where are the minutes of the standing working group's meetings kept?

2. When and how will the Commission at last meet the European Parliament's demand to be allowed to see those minutes?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The standing working group on the safe transport of radioactive material, comprises experts from the Member States designated by their safety and competent authorities, but who speak on their own behalf and express their views in close confidence.

Furthermore, the work undertaken by the group consists only of exchanges of views and is of a purely advisory and preparatory nature for the exercise of the Commission powers.

Therefore, the minutes of the meetings of the standing working group were only made available to the members of the group and to the Commission services concerned.

After consultation of the standing working group the Commission is now able to indicate that, henceforth, these minutes will also be available to the Committee on Research, Technological development and Energy of the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 40, 15.2.1982, p. 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2404/98

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: European ban on the use of the pesticide Drione

Is the Commission aware that the presence of the pesticide Drione in the water of the Meuse is causing problems for drinking water supply in the Netherlands?

When will the assessment committee be releasing its opinion on a ban on Drione?

Are there likely to be any initiatives or recommendations concerning the voluntary discontinuation of the use of Drione, as in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

Under the obligation laid down in Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationalizing reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment(1), the Netherlands submitted a report concerning the period 1993-1995 on a number of water related directives including Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(2). At present the data are being assessed by the Commission through the topic centre for inland waters of the European environment agency. The results will be known in the following months. Diuron based pesticides are a problem for some water suppliers in the Netherlands especially during the asparagus season. The way these suppliers partly solve this problem is by monitoring the raw water intake in big storage reservoirs and by closing the intake when necessary.

At the Community level the rules defining the marketing of plant protection products are set out in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(3). 90 active ingredients are included in a first priority list drafted under Commission Regulation (EEC) 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(4). Diuron, the active substance to which the Honourable Member is probably referring, is not included in this list, but will be considered in a future list. The Commission is aware that in the Netherlands the board for the authorisation of pesticides (CTB) intends to ban all products containing diuron due to persistence with effect from 1 December 1998 unless the users can prove that the environmental impact is negligible. A final decision is foreseen in early 1999.

The Commission will review individual substances according to the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC through priority lists. At present no voluntary agreement schemes are foreseen in this area at Community level.

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(4) OJ L 366, 15.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Allocation of mushroom import quotas

The supply of European mushrooms is limited, both in quantity and in quality, and is confined to only a few suppliers. Recently, harvests in EU Member States have been reduced, inter alia, by disease in the Netherlands. In addition, exports to the United States have increased, so that the supply on the internal market has declined.

Imports of mushrooms from China are limited, and it has not proved possible to meet consumer demand in the new Member States. The position and competitiveness of traditional importers have suffered from import quotas. Importers apply for, and purchase, import licences, whose apportionment among the Member States is unclear.

Can the Commission publish its statistics on the allocation of import quotas by Member State? On what basis are licences granted?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

Community tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms of the Agaricus genus are administered by means of import licences (Commission Regulation (EC) 2125/95, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 2493/98) of 18 November 1998 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for preserved mushrooms(1) issued to importers in the Member States as and when they apply for them.

The data on the use of these quotas are notified regularly to the Member States. For 1998, the final figures (in tonnes, drained net weight ) were as follows: Belgium 33, Denmark 290, Germany 15 963, Greece 275, Spain 73, France 474, Italy 7 496, Netherlands 9 422, Austria 2 658, Portugal 30, Finland 301, Sweden 2 299, total 39 315. Of the overall quota of 68 215 tonnes for 1998, 28 900 tonnes were unused.

Contrary to what the Honourable Member claims, Community statistics do not show any increase in exports of preserved mushrooms to the United States. On the other hand, prices for Community produce have fallen in recent years because of the build-up of stocks due to stagnant demand. The Community is therefore well able to meet its own requirements, in terms of both quantity and quality.

(1) OJ L 309, 19.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2703/98

by Luisa Todini (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Earthquake in the Marches and Umbria - decision by the European Commission

During an official visit to Umbria on 19 and 20 July 1998, the Commissioner responsible for regional policy, Monika Wulf-Mathies, ensured the local authorities that the European Commission would sign the decisions rescheduling Objective 5b for the regions of Umbria and the Marches by 31 July 1998.

It emerged from a meeting with a member of the cabinet of Franz Fischler, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture and rural development, that the decisions will not be signed by 31 July 1998 but after the summer holidays.

In view of this, can the Commission say why it did not adopt the decisions in question by the specified date, despite the assurances to that effect given by Commissioner Wolf-Mathies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The Commission adopted the decisions amending the single programming documents for Objective 5(b) in Marche and Umbria on 4 August 1998(1). These decisions were notified to Italy on 5 August 1998 and at the same time were sent for information to the presidents of the two regions concerned.

(1) Commission Decision C(98) 2335 of 4 August 1998 amending Commission Decision C(94) 3485 approving the single programming document for Community structural assistance in Umbria under Objective 5(b) and Commission Decision C(98) 2336 of 4 August 1998 amending Commission Decision C(95) 736 approving the single programming document for Community structural assistance in Marche under Objective 5(b).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4087/98

by José Mendes Bota (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Lagos and the Day of European Citizenship

In October 1996, in a letter to Mr Pinheiro, Commissioner, the chairman of the Lagos (Portugal) town council suggested that 9 May should be designated as the Day of European Citizenship and he offered his attractive town as a setting for events organised to mark the occasion.

Following the European Parliament's adoption, in July 1998, of a proposal for 9 May to be made a European public holiday, would the Commission provide information concerning the action taken in response to that proposal and the possibilities for arranging, under the aegis of the Commission and in association with Lagos town council, some socio-cultural events commemorating the day on which European integration was launched, to be held in Lagos in the course of 1999?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 1999)

The Commission considers the time has come to review ways of commemorating 9 May in the light of recent and future changes in the European Union as a result of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This review must take into account the desire to bring Europe closer to the people and comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

Together with the Member States the Commission is considering the question before making specific suggestions. Naturally, Parliament's views on the subject will be taken into account.

For the immediate future, the Commission is not considering any particular measure associated with any one European Union town in 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3811/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: VAT accounting for opticians

Given the problems identified in the UK with VAT accounting for opticians, has the Commission studied VAT accounting for opticians in other Member States, and does it believe that the substantial VAT refunds obtained in the UK could be replicated in other Member States?

Would the Commission explain briefly the ways in which the various Member States require opticians to account for VAT?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 1999)

The Commission has not received any complaints from opticians regarding difficulties in accounting for VAT.

In accordance with Article 13(A)(1)(e) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1), the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical profession as defined by the Member State concerned is exempt from VAT. The Court of justice has ruled(2) that this exemption did not extend to the supply of corrective spectacles prescribed by a doctor or by other authorised persons.

The substantial refunds of VAT in the United Kingdom to which the Honourable Member refers are due to the British courts finding against the interpretation by the British administration (HM Customs and Excise) that the supply of spectacles constituted a single supply and was therefore fully taxable rather than being two supplies - that of the dispensing (measuring and fitting) service and the supply of the spectacles. In 1995 opticians in the United Kingdom were invited to submit claims for repayment of VAT overpaid from 1 September 1988.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) Case 353/85, Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3822/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for the Indian leather sector

Can the Commission list the projects funded by the Commission to the benefit of the Indian leather sector (leather, footwear, leather goods), specifying the date on which each of the projects in question was approved and its objectives?

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

(18 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Regional aid scheme - Upper Shannon, Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the application from the Irish Government for a special tax concession scheme for a Rural Renewal Programme in the Upper Shannon region is being currently processed and whether it is being treated separately from other applications made by the Irish Government? What other applications are currently from the Irish Government before the European Commission?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

The Commission is currently examining the tax relief scheme provided under the rural renewal programme, notified to the Commission in compliance with the EC Treaty. The scheme is indeed being treated separately from other Irish aid schemes which are currently under examination.

The Commission is currently examining the tax reliefs scheme under the Urban Renewal Act 1998, the application of capital allowances in a new geographical extension within the Customs house Dublin docks area in Dublin, as well as the granting of double rent relief, rates remission and capital allowances on the basis of the 1994 and 1995 Finance acts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Subsidy for Community fishermen affected by ecological bans in third countries

The ecological ban, imposed for the months of September and October by the Mauritanian Government, will force numerous Community shipowners who specialise in catching black hake to moor their boats in harbour and face a closed season imposed by this African state.

Current rules ban any form of aid from the European Union or from the Member States' coffers to offset losses in the event of ecological bans, which raises the question of how the shipowners and fishermen affected can meet the considerable financial losses suffered during the idle period imposed by the countries in question.

Can the Commission say what measures, in the form of compulsory insurance or a similar solution, it has planned in order to help the fishermen affected by these measures imposed by third countries, and enable the Community fisheries industry to survive the financial hardship suffered by thousands of families in Europe's fisheries sector?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products(1), FIFG assistance may be used only to finance measures intended to offset partially the loss of income suffered as a result of a temporary cessation of fishing activities caused by unforeseen and non-repetitive events resulting from biological phenomena in particular. However, the cessation of fishing activities under the Community agreement with Mauritania is not an unforeseen event as provision is made for this eventuality under the Agreement.

The Commission would like to point out that Member States can implement the other measures provided for under the FIFG operational programme which might help fleet restructuring. Complementary measures can be introduced under the Community initiative PESCA, which aims to help the fisheries industry successfully bring about change.

As for taking out insurance against the cessation of fishing activities under Community fishing agreements with third countries, it is up to fishing ventures themselves to investigate whether or not this is possible. Such insurance cannot be made compulsory under Community law.

(1) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993.