ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Consultation in the production of structural fund guidelines, as agreed at the informal Council in Ireland (14-15.11.1996)

What consultation took place with Member States and with local regional authorities, voluntary organisations and the social partners within eligible areas before the production of these guidelines for 1997-1999 in May 1997? Given that they were not referred for consultation to the European Parliament until December 1997, in what sense is the Commission ensuring meaningful consultation on this question? Does the Commission plan any changes in this respect for the new structural fund programming period: 1999-2006?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

No formal consultation took place with local and regional authorities, voluntary organisations or social partners before the production of the guidelines. However, formulation of the guidelines took close account of the comments of Member States at the informal meeting of ministers responsible for regional policy and spatial planning held in Ireland on 14-15 November 1996, as well as the Presidency conclusions on that meeting. These asked the Commission to 'formulate policy guidelines, established in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, aimed at adapting the current Objective 1 and 6 programmes towards increased job-intensiveness for the period to the end of 1999'. In this regard the guidelines reflect local circumstances as well as the role of monitoring committees in deciding on adjustments to programmes (the Honourable Member is also referred to his written question E-486/98 ((See page 40. ))).

For the new structural funds programming period, the Commission is proposing a similar approach. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the proposed regulations also sets out the Community priorities for structural policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0227/98 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Projects funded by the Thermie Programme

According to the 'Agence Europe' issue of 12 January 1998, the Commission has funded 134 projects in the framework of the Thermie Programme.

Will the Commission state what Portuguese projects were funded in this way, and how much funding was provided for each of them?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1998)

In 1997 the Commission granted Community funding under the Thermie programme to 13 demonstration projects involving 22 Portuguese contractors. Total Community support for these projects came to ECU 16.4 million, of which ECU 2.7 million for the Portuguese participants.

To give a full picture of Portuguese involvement, the Commission is sending a list of the 13 projects directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, indicating project titles and descriptions, the overall support, the Portuguese participants and the individual amount contributed to each project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0771/98 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Use of PESCA funding by the Member States

The PESCA information bulletin says that the PESCA funds have been largely exhausted. However, in the Netherlands it appears that some of the appropriations available have not yet been utilised.

1. Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the utilization of PESCA funding in the various Member States?

2. Can the Commission indicate why utilization of appropriations in some Member States, including the Netherlands, has been under the expected level?

3. Can the Commission state the total funding remaining per Member State for the projects submitted in 1995 and for the second tranche of projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

1. The table below summarises the budgetary execution of PESCA at 31 December 1997.

(ECU millions)

>TABLE>

2. One of the main ideas of PESCA has been that projects should be created in the regions themselves by the parties involved. It seems that this new approach created certain difficulties in the Member States as it implied new forms of collaboration and cooperation between the various parties, particularly in the Netherlands.

The multi-fund character of PESCA with the financial participation of up to three structural funds (European regional development fund, European social fund, Financial instrument for fisheries guidance) which also involved in the Member States the participation of various authorities, may also partially explain the rather low level of implementation.

The Commission has expressed its concern on this in a recent letter to the Member States with a low level of implementation by asking them for up-dated information on the programmes. In the light of the results obtained from this exercise the Commission will, if necessary, make proposals regarding any possible reallocation between Community initiatives at Community level in mid-1998.

3. On 8 May 1996 the Commission decided to strengthen the financial support to Community initiatives, including PESCA. Several Member States were given additional allocations for PESCA. Member States had consequently to modify their PESCA programme to integrate this additional financial allocation.

The Member States which still have to integrate the additional allocation (in MECU at 1995 prices) into their programme are:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0799/98 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Dispersion of radioactivity from the Dounreay site in Scotland into the North Sea

Has the Commission reason to change its reply to question H-0706/96 ((Proceedings of the European Parliament 4-488 (September 1996). )), on 17 September 1996 that the dispersion of radioactivity from the Dounreay site in Scotland into the North Sea 'is of no significance to Scandinavia' in the light of the admission by the UK Atomic Energy Authority management on 2 February 1998 that there is a second, hitherto secret, disposal shaft/silo at Dounreay? When did the Commission learn of the existence of the shaft?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)

The newspaper article, to which the Honourable Member refers, provides no new information relevant to discharges from the Dounreay site. Consequently, it does not affect the Commission's reply to Oral Question H-706/96 by Mrs Eriksson during question time at Parliament's September 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament 4-488 (September 1996). )).

The 'hitherto secret' shaft is, in fact, an on-site storage facility known as the Intermediate solid waste silo. It is connected to the site effluent disposal system and so any discharge from it is part of the authorised discharge from the site. The Commission has known of the existence of this facility since the United Kingdom became a signatory to the Euratom Treaty. In that context, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's reply to Written Question E-663/98 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz ((See page 62. )).

The United Kingdom Government has also announced that the wastes are to be retrieved for treatment from both the intermediate based shaft and the silo at Dounreay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (6 May 1998)

Subject: Agreement for the return of EU nationals held in prison in Morocco

1. Can the Council explain why only one person is employed, one week per month, to defend the interests of almost 100 Netherlands prisoners in seven different Moroccan prisons throughout the country?

2. Is not one person for 100 prisoners, divided among 7 prisons in different parts of the country, far too few given that the UK Government (for example) has six full-time employees to defend the interests of only 35 prisoners?

3. Is the Council prepared to advise the Member States that they should enter negotiations without delay with the Moroccan Government with a view to concluding an agreement as soon as possible to permit prisoners from EU Member States to serve their sentences in their own countries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1396/98 and E-1397/98 (6 July 1998)

The issues the Honourable Member raises in Written Question No 1396/98 and in points 4 and 5 of her Written Question No 1397/98 do not fall within the Council's sphere of competence.

The matters referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 of Written Question No 1397/98 have never been discussed by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Decentralization of the Interreg II programme

The aim of the Interreg II programme is to implement effective mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between frontier regions.

Some countries have chosen to decentralize the office responsible for managing this programme to the region concerned, such as France, which has established an office in Toulouse for the Midi-Pyrénées region.

Does the Commission not consider that all Member States should be asked to decentralize the offices responsible for the management of this programme to bring them into closer contact with the situation in the region concerned and with the beneficiaries of the programme, while at the same time improving management efficiency?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998)

In the guidelines for the Interreg II operational programmes ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )), the Commission stresses the importance it attaches to the establishment or development, in cooperation with the regional or local authorities concerned, of shared institutional or administrative structures in border areas competent to implement projects. The Member States have been encouraged to take this into account as far as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0969/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Greek companies in the FYROM

The Greek company 'Leaf Tobacco A. Mihailidis SA' has set up a tobacco factory in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which employs 278 permanent and 151 seasonal workers and has invested significant amounts of money ($5 million) after concluding an agreement with the Government. In July 1997 the minister responsible defied existing legislation and granted partial authorization to the company in question which undertook to buy tobacco only from the south-western part of the country.

What does the Commission intend to do to investigate these allegations and ensure that existing legislation in the country is implemented?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

Economic relations between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece have improved substantially since late 1995. The Commission is aware of problems with which several Greek investors in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are currently confronted including the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not in a position to check whether, in this particular case, the granting of a regional purchasing licence for tobacco by the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is in conformity with relevant national legislation. On the other hand, the Commission has mentioned this case on several occasions including at the first meeting of the cooperation council under the cooperation agreement between the Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which took place in Skopje on 20/21 March 1998.

The authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were reminded of the importance of creating the appropriate framework conditions for crucially needed foreign direct investment in the country and to promote industrial cooperation with the Community in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the cooperation agreement. The Commission was assured by these authorities that a solution to this particular case could be reached in order to allow the purchase of tobacco by tobacco processors in all prefectures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/98 by Riitta Myller (PSE), Reino Paasilinna (PSE), Pertti Paasio (PSE) and Jörn Donner (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: The Commission and freedom of expression

It has come to our notice that the Commission has written to object to the TV series which appeared on Finland's Yleisradio TV 1st channel entitled '30 FIM per week creates 30 000 jobs a year'. The series was intended for the general public and its aim was to describe the employment effect of demand for products produced in Finland.

Under the principles of the EU's internal market, goods, services and persons must be able to move freely within the borders of the Community. However, it is not possible to use these provisions to interfere with the freedom of expression in a Member State, as was clearly the case in the above-mentioned contact with the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that it does not attempt in future, relying on the rules of the single market or on any other grounds, to restrict the enjoyment of free expression in the Member States? The freedom of expression is one of the central principles of the European concept of democracy and thus also of the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/98 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Age discrimination for EU employment

I was surprised to note that age discrimination still applies in the recruitment of EU staff: last week a number of posts were advertised in Denmark via Ritzaus telegram bureau for which one of the requirements was that applicants must not be more than 35 years of age.

1. Why is there any age limit at all, and why 35 in this case?

2. Does the Commission believe that over 35s are less suitable for employment in the EU institutions than the under 35s?

3. Is the Commission aware that similar age limits are increasingly being be applied in other parts of the labour market, and does the Commission believe this to be desirable?

4. What plans does the Commission have for action to stop age discrimination in the labour market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

On 21 January 1998 ((SEC(97) 2416. SEC(97) 2417. )), the Commission took a decision on the principle of dropping age limits from notices of competitions. The principle will be introduced gradually in agreement with the other Community institutions. As a first step, the age limit for competitions for recruitment to the starting grades will be raised to 45 years in line with the formula decided on by Parliament's Bureau on 20 October 1997. This decision will be applied in future for all competitions for recruitment in the starting grades.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has not published any competition with 35 years as the age limit since the beginning of this year.

The practice followed by the Commission and the other institutions of including age limits in notices of competitions has been criticised by the Ombudsman and Members of Parliament. They maintain that age limits are discriminatory and arbitrary. The application of age limits should be treated in the same way as any another form of discrimination.

The matter of age limits must now be viewed also in the light of the new Article 6a inserted by the Amsterdam Treaty which states that 'the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation'.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0734/98 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Ban on 'organic farming' classification in the departments of Aude and Pyrénées Orientales (France)

Since 1994, a series of measures taken by the French Ministry of Agriculture and certain prefectures oblige all wine growers in the departments of Aude and Pyrénées Orientales to protect all vines against the Flavescence Dorée virus with synthetic chemical insecticides. This obligation also applies to wine growers using organic means of production.

Certain 'organic' wine growers, having no outbreak of Flavescence Dorée in their vineyards, refused to apply such preventive treatment.

As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture decided to forbid the 'Ecocert' control body from certifying these wine growers' vines as 'organic farming', even though the vineyards in question fully meet, according to the checks carried out by 'Ecocert', the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 ((OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1. )) on organic production. These wine growers have been forced to cease making any reference to organic production.

This withdrawal of the 'organic farming' label appears to be in flat contradiction to the provisions of Article 9(2) and 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to allow these wine growers to recover their right to the 'organic farming' classification?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/98 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Information on the amount of European Union aid to colleges of higher education and research institutions in Catalonia in 1995, 1996 and 1997

Can the Commission provide information on the amount of Community resources granted to colleges of higher education and research institutions in Catalonia in 1995, 1996 and 1997, and on the measures to which such funds were allocated, as part of:

1. the first framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration,

2. Community programmes in the areas of energy and the environment,

3. Community initiatives, in particular the Interreg programme,

4. the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth for Europe programmes,

5. the regional and structural funds and

6. the remaining Community programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) and James Janssen van Raay (UPE) to the Council (28 April 1998)

Subject: 15 August flags of peace celebrations

On 15 August 1998 it will be 53 years since the horrors of World War II came to an end and the world's peoples decided never again to wage world war.

Will the Council consider celebrating 15 August every year as a proposed starting date for perpetual peace? Will the Council arrange for flags to be flown in all countries of the European Union on 15 August this year as a symbol of peace?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The Council has not discussed the question raised by the honourable Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Grant to neo-Nazi group

Would the Commission investigate claims that the German-based Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavioural Research collected a grant of £75,000 from the EU agricultural fund? What criteria was used to decide funding to such a group?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question No P-4231/97 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz ((OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 138. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0607/98 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Social and economic cohesion

Before accepting the financial guidelines, Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee have both called for guarantees from the Commission to the effect that those guidelines will not jeopardize the progress of social and economic cohesion in the European Union.

The governments of the countries which benefit from cohesion fear that the reduction in solidarity and on the volume of transfers may adversely affect the results they have achieved in their efforts to catch up with the economically more developed countries and regions of the European Union.

What decisions or supplementary proposals is the Commission intending to make in order to remove these uncertainties, which are creating unease and insecurity amongst the general public and in political debate at national level?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1998)

In its communication 'Agenda 2000: for a stronger and wider Europe ((COM (97) final 2000. ))', the Commission proposed increasing the Structural Funds budget for the current 15 Member States to ECU 218.3 billion (1999 prices) for the period 2000-06.

About two thirds of this funding will go to the regions lagging behind in their development eligible for Objective 1 under the reformed Structural Funds. Objective criteria will be used to allocate this funding, i.e. eligible population, the gap between regional wealth and the Community average, national wealth and a high unemployment level. This method will make it possible to concentrate funding in the regions with the most serious difficulties.

As regards the Cohesion Fund, the Commission has proposed that Member States whose gross national product (GNP) per capita is less than 90% of the Community average should continue to qualify, whether they take part in the third phase of economic and monetary union (EMU) or not.

There is therefore no doubting the Commission's determination to maintain the policy priority of economic and social cohesion and to show solidarity with the least well-off Community regions. The Commission showed this determination on 18 March 1998 by adopting the draft Regulations on the Structural Funds and the communication to the Council and to Parliament on the establishment of a new financial perspective for the period 2000-06.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0968/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Conversion of a monastery into a hotel by the Turks in the occupied part of Cyprus

Reports have emerged that the Turkish regime of occupation in northern Cyprus has given authorization for the Armenian Monastery of Makarios Pentadaktylos, known as Armenomonastiri, to be converted into a hotel.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of these reports and whether it knows what kind of business interests are involved? If not, does it intend to investigate this fresh violation by the occupying regime of the property rights of the Armenian Church and the Armenian people and, more generally, the destruction of monuments of Europe's cultural heritage which are being systematically pillaged and looted in the occupied part of Cyprus?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1998)

The Commission is aware of the facts reported by the Honourable Member. It will endeavour to raise the matter in its dealings with the northern part of Cyprus (which are limited to civil society), and point out the need to preserve the monastery. As regards the possible influence of Turkey on northern Cyprus in this connection, the Commission will also endeavour to address the issue in its discussions with the Turkish authorities.