ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1981/97 by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Nazi propaganda

The 'Europa' bookshop in Barcelona has been temporarily closed on the grounds that it is a centre for disseminating Nazi propaganda and racist leaflets. The closure has led to a 'Committee for freedom of expression' being set up in support of the owner; it has published a manifesto questioning the fundamental principles which underpin democratic states founded on the rule of law, attacking, for example, laws on the crime of genocide and questioning their constitutionality. The committee in question is collecting funds to support its aims.

Given that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties, and has a duty to ensure that the basic principles of democracy are respected, especially in this European Year Against Racism and Xenophobia, what steps does the Commission intend to take in situations like this, where citizens' committees, possibly with the backing of extreme right wing organizations, are set up in the name of freedom of expression to defend the dissemination of Nazi or racist ideas which call into question our democratic criminal legislation? How does the Commission intend to prevent and curb initiativesof this kind?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

The combating of racist manifestations in Member States is essentially a matter for the national, regional and local authorities of the Member States, in the light of their laws, regulations and constitutional provisions.

On 15 July 1996, on the basis of Article 193 of the Treaty on European Union, the Council adopted a Joint Action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia ((OJ L 185, 24.7.1996. )). In order to facilitate international judicial cooperation to combat racism and xenophobia this Joint Action contains provisions which seek to ensure that certain types of racist and xenophobic behaviour are punishable as criminal offences or, failing that, and pending the adoption of any necessary provisions, to derogate from the principle of double criminality for such behaviour.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2284/97 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Freedom of movement for road haulage every day of the week

Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome allows prohibitions and restrictions on goods in transit provided they do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. However, France and Germany do not allow lorry traffic on non-working days. The rest of the Member States, on the other hand, prefer heavy traffic to be spread over the seven days of the week, so as not to cause week day congestion for the sake of week-end traffic. Specific restrictions for road safety reasons are acceptable, but not general bans.

Furthermore, along the frontiers of these countries, great queues of lorries build up, to the direct detriment of the frontier regions of neighbouring countries.

Does the Commission possess any means of preventing these distortions of the free movement of traffic by liberalizing the transport of goods so as to avoid these additional costs to the transit of goods within the Union? If not, is it prepared to make a proposal to this effect?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-41/97 and E-1567/97 by Mr Cornelissen ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997. )) and Mr Wijsenbeek ((See page 72. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/97 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Flood protection measures on the Moselle and Sûre rivers

The commune of Oberbillig (Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany)intends to protect itself from flooding by the Moselle and Sûre rivers by building a wall on the German side.

As the two rivers form a natural frontier between Germany and Luxembourg, the communes on either side of the border should be encouraged to jointly plan and implement a cross-border project to prevent flooding.

Could the Commission not take the initiative, in connection with Interreg C on flood control in the Rhine- Meuse basin, to encourage and help the German and Luxembourgish communes involved to take practical action at local level to implement a truly European programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The Commission received on 15 January 1997 a proposal for an Interreg II C joint operational programme on flood control in the Meuse Rhine basin. The draft programme was presented by the Netherlands authorities in cooperation with the Belgian, German, French and Luxembourg authorities. The total available budget from the structural funds is 135.28 MECU, of which 100 MECU for the Netherlands, 7.75 MECU for Belgium, 24.92 MECU for Germany and 2.61 MECU for France; there is no budget available for Luxembourg. The programme was sent to the Commission for a first consultation. It is therefore not yet possible to react to specific proposals such as the project in Oberbillig in Germany.

The Commission would propose, however, to give particular support, in the framework of the Interreg II C programme, to those projects which require a transnational approach and solution. It will therefore pay special attention to the extent to which transnational cooperation will be stimulated in the joint operational programme and will require that the transnational dimension be used as one of the main criteria for the selection of projects in the framework of the programme.

The Commission has already expressed a reservation as regards supporting infrastructure projects in the framework of the Interreg II C programme, taking into account the limited budget available for the different Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Copyright in the EU

Many artists across Europe are calling for a uniform copyright law to enable the heirs of deceased artists to collect royalties in the EU on their works.

What is the Commission's position on this issue and does it believe that harmonization would benefit artists throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1997)

The question by the Honourable Member refers to the problem of the transmission of property rights by authors and other rightholders to their heirs. These matters are, as a general rule, left to the Member States to deal with under their civil law.

However, the Commission would point out that the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights has already been harmonised at Community level by Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )). The Directive establishes a uniform term of protection at Community level for all works and other protected objects which is fixed at 70 years after the death of the author. The rights of performers expire 50 years after the date of the performance. However, the Directive does not harmonise any aspect of succession to rights, these continuing to be governed by national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1235/97 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Urban development in Sanlucar de Barrameda, Spain

According to recent media reports in Andalusia, Spain, the Commission has published an opinion on the environmental viability of an urban development project (the Hohenlohe project) which may infringe Community environmental legislation.

What is the legal standing of the opinion and on what basis has it been drawn up?

Is the Hohenlohe project receiving Community finance via the structural funds? If not, might it be jeopardizing other measures which are being carried out with structural fund monies under the Doñana II operational programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Commission is not aware of the information published in Andalusia about its 'opinion' on an urban development project in Sanlúcar de Barrameda. In any case, it has not issued and is not required to issue an 'opinion' on the project.

The Commission has not financed the Hohenlohe project, which lies outside the area of the Doñana II programme and so has no impact on Community assistance which has already been approved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: EU funding for the ECMI

In response to my question of 13 January 1997 to the Commission (E-0105/97) ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 226. )) on the activities of the European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI), Commissioner Wulf-Mathies stated on 17.3.1997 that the Commission 'is collecting the information it needs to answer the question'.

However, I have also received an information file from the head of the ECMI, Mr Stefan Troebst, answering the questions I had raised. This Centre has particularly 'distinguished itself' through its attempt to slander a Member State of the European Union, namely Greece, by making indulgent use of information of dubious authenticity to discover 'bogus' minorities in many countries and to raise questions which have the potential to trigger conflicts in many parts of Europe. This is an exceptionally serious matter, especially since the information file sent to me by Mr Troebst mentions that the ECMI has received funding of ECU 641 000 under the INTERREG II programme and that provision has been made for representatives of the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE to sit on its governing council.

Given that the curious activities of the ECMI can seriously tarnish the image of the European Union, will the Commission explain its official position regarding this centre, given that it appears to be financing it, and that two Member States of the European Union (Denmark and Germany) are also contributing ECU 575 000 per year to it, thus turning against their other EU partners?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission has up to now not made a financial contribution to the European Centre for minority issues but it is examining the demands of the two Member States for Interreg II support for the project.

It is not for the Commission to comment on the statements attributed to the director of the centre.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1319/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Retransmission of BSE from cattle to sheep

According to scientific findings to date, the threat of the BSE epidemic being retransmitted from cattle to sheep cannot be ruled out.

1. Is it true that a document by the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee has been available since 21 October 1996 recommending that at least material posing a risk such as brains, eyes and spinal cords from sheep, goats and cattle should be removed from the food chain in all countries in which there have been cases of BSE?

2. If so, why has the Commission not yet acted on this recommendation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The scientific veterinary committee advised, in its opinion of 21 October 1996, that certain tissues of bovine, ovine and caprine origin should be removed from the human and animal food chains in countries or regions where there is a potential risk. The committee was unable to exclude the possibility of a risk in any Member State.

The Commission, on the basis of this advice, put forward a proposal for a decision on 11 December 1996 to ensure that these tissues were removed in the abattoir and destroyed, throughout the Community. This proposal failed to obtain a qualified majority in favour from the standing veterinary committee. Under the rules of procedure, it was sent to the Council, where it was rejected on 17 December 1996 by a simple majority.

The round of inspections in Member States, carried out in late 1996, has identified some deficiencies in the action taken against bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Commission therefore is considering further action, including submission of a new proposal on similar lines to that made in December 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2047/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: CERA annual report on 'Extremism in Europe'

The annual report of the European Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Anti-Semitism (CERA), entitled 'Extremism in Europe', was presented to the press at the EP Press Centre in Strasbourg on 14 May 1997.

Astonishment and indignation are the only possible reactions to the section of the report devoted to the Italian political party, Alleanza Nazionale, which is branded by the CERA, with no real supporting evidence, as an organization with an ideology characterized by immobilism, many of whose activities reflect a tradition of xenophobia, and which has a tendency towards anti-democratic and extremist behaviour. As is illustrated by the data set out in the CERA report itself, Alleanza Nazionale is a party which, in addition to being well represented in the European Parliament, gained 15.7% of the overall vote in the recent elections in Italy, and in some constituencies, over 30%. This attempt to present Alleanza Nazionale to world public opinion as just another right-wing extremist group is therefore totally unacceptable, as well as being totally unfounded. The CERA report would appear to reflect a basic prejudice against the right wing and, despite the fact that it should be based on hard facts alone, it contains unacceptable elements of political bias.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. the CERA report was commissioned or supported in any way (including financially) by one of the Community institutions?

2. if it was, it is to be considered an official document of the Community institutions?

3. there are any rules preventing the Community institutions from providing support of any kind for politically-biased initiatives?

4. it intends to give its views on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to written question P-1940/97 from Mr Fernando Moriz ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )).

The report mentioned can in no way be considered an official document of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1836/97 by Fernand Herman (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Interpretation of Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services

In the context of the liberalization of the market for telecommunications services, the Commission has defined the term 'closed user groups' as follows:

'those entities, not necessarily bound by economic links, but which can be identified as being part of a group on the basis of a lasting professional relationship among themselves, or with another entity of the group, and whose internal communications needs result from the common interest underlying this relationship. In general, the link between the members of the group is a common business activity' ((Communication by the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the status and implementation of Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ C 275, 20.10.1995, p. 2). )).

Will the Commission confirm that a closed user group can be composed not only of persons with relations which pre-date the offer of communications services, but also of persons whose relations which were established subsequently?

Will the Commission also confirm that no 'voice telephony' service, within the meaning of Directive 90/388/EEC ((OJ L 192, 24.7.1990, p. 10. )), is provided when the service user can enter into communication only with persons whose telephone numbers are selected by a computer program on the basis of the frequency with which the user has dialled those numbers? The call frequency would prove the existence of a lasting business relationship between the service user and the persons whose numbers are dialled regularly.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1997)

Commission Directive 90/388/EEC defines voice telephony as a commercial service provided 'for the public'. The provision of telephone communications linking closed user groups is one instance among others of a service which is not run for the public and which does not, therefore, constitute voice telephony within the meaning of the Directive. To determine whether telephone services constitute voice telephony, the relevant criterion is not whether they are supplied to closed user groups, but whether they are operated for the benefit of the general public.

The idea of closed user groups is based on the existence of lasting professional links between individuals or companies. Such links may be readily identifiable, as with the examples quoted in the Commission communication of 20 October 1995. In other cases, demonstrating the existence of such connections may be a matter of fact, as in the case of the links between a company and its usual suppliers or main clients. The technique referred to by the Honourable Member - the identification of the members of a closed user group on the basis of the frequency of calls during a given reference period - may be used for this purpose.

Such an approach must not, of course, be used to the exclusion of other possible, less intrusive ways of demonstrating the existence of links between the members of a closed user group.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-1031 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B3-4302 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0781/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-5080 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.