ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)

What steps does the Council intend to take to counteract, as a matter of urgency, the most negative consequences of the Court's judgment of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)?

Reply

(3 November 1998)

The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May 1998 in Case C-106/96 (United Kingdom v. Commission) gives a reminder of the Court's earlier case-law which makes it clear that, "in the system of the Treaty, any implementation of expenditure by the Commission in principle presupposes, in addition to the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget, an act of secondary legislation (commonly called the 'basic act') from which the expenditure derives(1)."

Further to that judgment, the Commission, within the framework of its responsibilities under Article 205 of the Treaty, decided to implement, in 1998, certain budget headings for projects known to be politically sensitive.

On 17 July 1998, the Council, the Commission and a European Parliament delegation established a consensus on a draft interinstitutional agreement on legal bases and implementation of the budget as from the 1999 budgetary procedure. That agreement was signed by representatives of the three institutions on 13 October 1998.

(1) Point 22 of the grounds of the judgment, ECR 1998-5, p. I-2753.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/98

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Construction of small hydro power plants in Galicia (Spain)

The autonomous government of Galicia (Spain) is planning to authorize the construction of more than 200 small hydro electric power plants, using EU funds provided under different Community.

Given that Galicia is one of the autonomous Spanish communities which exports more than half its output of electricity, that it currently has various projects for the construction of wind parks and reservoirs and that it has over 100 small hydro power plants in operation which have destroyed areas of great ecological value and natural beauty,

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Has the Commission received any applications from the Spanish national and regional authorities for funding for the project to build more small hydro electric plants?

3. If the project is being financed with Community funds, can the Commission say what sums have been authorized and on the basis of what criteria?

4. Assuming that the project is implemented, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the competent authorities carry out a detailed study, with advice from experts in the field, to determine both the health and the environmental implications of the project, in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

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

(31 July 1998)

The Commission believes that only 30 of the small hydroelectric power stations to which the Honourable Members refer were authorised.

It has received no request for part-financing by the European Regional Development Fund or by the Cohesion Fund for this project.

If the Spanish authorities submitted such a request, the Commission would carry out a thorough analysis of the case. A decision to part-finance the project would be taken only if it complied with all Community policies, including that on the environment.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/98

by Irini Lambraki (PSE) and Konstadinos Klironomos (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Destruction of vineyards by heatwave

At the beginning of July 1998 a prolonged heatwave caused enormous damage over an extensive viticultural area in Greece: vineyards growing table grapes and high-quality wine grapes are the worst affected.

Will the Commission say whether there is any scope for addressing a disaster of this kind which will have long-term repercussions for the market in quality wines and severely affect producers' incomes and whether it intends to support the replanting of the vineyards destroyed by this heatwave?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The common market organisation (CMO) in wine does not make general provision for granting aid in the event of bad weather. Nor do the regulations governing the CMO provide for either production-based or area-based aid. The only reference to natural disasters is in Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), under which exemption may be granted from such requirements as compulsory distillation - which is not relevant in this case.

The Community legislation currently in force provides for two ways in which, at the Member State's instigation, a programme can be launched to help wine-growers replant vineyards damaged by drought:

- national investment aid for planting vineyards, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) 2741/89 of 11 September 1989 laying down criteria to apply under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87 on national aid for the planting of wine-growing areas(2) (the Commission must receive prior notification of such aid);

- investment aid for replanting funded jointly by the Community under the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which must fall within the financial allocation for Greece for the current programming period (1994-1999) and comply with the relevant procedure laid down in the Objective 1 Community Support Framework; any reprogramming intended to remedy drought damage would need to be submitted for approval to the Commission by the Greek Government as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987.

(2) OJ L 264, 12.9.1989.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/98

by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Council

(6 July 1998)

Subject: Dismissal of distinguished Turkish journalists

On the basis of concocted "information" supplied by an alleged leading member of the PKK, the Turkish generals have forced the employers of two distinguished Turkish journalists, Mehmet Ali Birad and Ghengiz Çantar, to dismiss them. In addition, there are fears that their dismissal also signals the go-ahead for the "liquidation" of the two Turkish journalists by rogue elements in Turkey who are operating in close cooperation with the official authorities, as the events at Sokuluk have demonstrated. All these events are taking place at the same time as Turkey and some of its economic partners are insisting that the leaders of the country are sincere in wanting Turkey to have closer relations with the Union.

1. What practical measures will the Council take to protect the two journalists from a probable assassination attempt?

2. When will the Council explain to the Turkish leadership - in plain terms - that the principles on which Europe's democracies are based also include freedom of expression and thought and that it is not possible to ignore, for economic or any other form of gain, Turkey's renewed drift towards autocracy and totalitarianism?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

1. The Council does not possess information enabling it to assess either the reasons for the dismissal of the journalists Mehmet Ali Birad and Ghengiz Çantar, or the extent to which their lives are in danger.

2. The Council would point out that the European Council, at its meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December 1997, reiterated that, in accordance with the position adopted by the Council at the Association Council meeting with Turkey on 29 April 1997, the strengthening of Turkey's links with the EU also depended on the alignment of Turkey's standards and practices in respect of human rights with those in force in the European Union. It regrets that Turkey is currently refusing to continue its political dialogue with the Union in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/98

by Elmar Brok (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Dishonest sales practices involving names of German firms in the CITA shopping centre in Playa del Ingles, Grand Canaria (Spain)

1. Is the Commission aware of the fact, reported by German television, that some purveyors of electronic leisure goods in the CITA shopping centre on Grand Canaria are deliberately deceiving their customers by displaying the names of well-known German firms - although the shops in question are not branches/outlets - and that they are also using these names for unauthorised guarantees

2. Is the Commission aware that very large numbers of holiday makers have been taken in by this sales ploy and that the Spanish authorities, despite many complaints, will hardly lift a finger to help?

3. Is there any way in which the Commission can bring pressure to bear on the Spanish authorities to put an end to such illegal practices forthwith?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: The NUTS and Agenda 2000

Can the Commission confirm the geographical distribution of the areas eligible under NUTS 2 for the UK, following the submission of Agenda 2000?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The Commission presented its proposals for Agenda 2000(1) in July 1997. Its proposals for new regulations relating to the structural funds and the Cohesion fund for the period 2000-2006 were published in March 1998.

In mid-1995, the Statistical office of the Community (Eurostat) was informed by the Office for national statistics (ONS) of the United Kingdom that following a comprehensive reform in regional and local administration, significant changes would be proposed to the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) system.

The first draft proposal for reform of the NUTS in the United Kingdom was forwarded to the Commission for comment in mid-1996, followed by a formal proposal in June 1997. After examination of the technical merits of the proposals in the light of the underlying principles of the NUTS system, a new NUTS classification for the United Kingdom was agreed in June 1998. It involved very minor changes at the NUTS 1 level, a significant revision of the NUTS 3 regions with related changes at the NUTS 4 level, as well as more limited changes at the NUTS 2 level.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Release of Nigeria's President

What steps will the Council take to encourage the release of Chief Abiola, Nigeria's President elect, and ensure the forthcoming elections herald Nigeria's return to democracy?

Reply

(19 October 1998)

The Honourable Member will be aware that Chief Abiola has since died while still in custody in Nigeria on 7 July 1998. At his family's request and with the Nigerian government's agreement, an international team of forensic experts performed an autopsy to establish the cause of death. The conclusion of their final report was that Chief Abiola died of natural causes, although his imprisonment may have affected his health.

In a statement by the Presidency dated 18 September 1998, the European Union welcomed the recent developments in the situation in Nigeria. It views with particular appreciation the government's commitment to initiate a democratization process. In this connection, the European Union welcomes the creation of a new electoral Commission which has already adopted the guidelines for registering political parties and a detailed timetable for the electoral process the first stage of which, i.e. the prior registration of parties, has just been successfully concluded.

The European Union has encouraged the Nigerian government to continue its efforts to restore a democratic society, characterised by the observance of human rights and based on the rule of law. The EU will continue to further this aim by intensifying the political dialogue which has been started.

The European Union stresses its readiness to cooperate with all political forces committed to democratic principles and the rule of law, and to assist in the building of a civil society.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1794/98

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: HFC gases

Since the adoption of the Montreal Protocol ban on CFCs and HCFCs, non-ozone-depleting HFCs have been developed. However, HFC refrigerants are significant global warmers. The potent global warming impact of HFCs was recognised by their inclusion in the basket of gases at last December's conference in Kyoto.

1. Will the Commission propose that a planned phase-out of HFCs should be included in the proposals to be discussed at the June Council of Environment ministers as the EU prepares its position for the Fourth Conference of the Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in November in Buenos Aires?

2. Does the Commission acknowledge that there are now viable alternatives to HFCs which are being increasingly used both across the EU and in the developing world?

3. Does the Commission recognize that prompt action now will save industry further costs by reducing the occurrence of "two-step" moves away from CFCs and HCFCs?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

1. The Commission notes the current rapid growth of the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which have a significant global warming potential. It is however unclear what types of measures will be most efficient and cost-effective to limit the emissions of these gases. Therefore further work is needed to assess the feasibility of different measures. To this end the June 1998 Environment Council called for "further work on policies to limit and/or reduce emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, particularly in the light of their inclusion within the Kyoto basket of gases" and it invited the Commission to "develop a framework covering all fields of production and use of these gases for emission limitation and/or reduction that can be further elaborated by Member States".

2. The Commission welcomes the recent increase in availability throughout the world of more environmental friendly alternatives to ozone depleting substances and to HFCs. In the explanatory memorandum to the new draft regulation(1) on ozone depleting substances the Commission stresses the risks of extensive use of HFCs, recalls that HFCs are substances with very long atmospheric life-times and also potential greenhouse gases and concludes that any use of HFCs will have to be accompanied by strict emission control measures.

3. The Commission's work on climate related issues has a high priority. In June 1998 the Council invited the Commission to develop a framework covering all fields of production and use of HFCs for their emission reduction. The Commission agrees that appropriate alternatives to HFCs should be encouraged when available.

(1) COM(98) 398.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Sewerage and sewage treatment system in Old Kavalla

The Eastern Macedonia Department of the Technical Chamber of Greece claims that the drains and pumping stations for the sewage system in Old Kavalla have been built in the waterfront area as opposed to the approved study, which provided for them to be built higher up, on stable ground and away from the waterfront.

Given that:

- the project is funded from Community resources,

- the construction of the system in the waterfront area, in an exceptional summer resort such as Old Kavalla, creates environmental problems and deprives the public of free access to and use of the waterfront and the beach,

- there is a constant threat to the system from rough seas (in the winter of 1996-1997 a section of the drains was swept away),

can the Commission investigate the matter and examine whether there is a discrepancy between the locations indicated in the study and the actual locations of the work and, if so, will it ask the Greek authorities for clarification

Supplementary answer

given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Further to its answer of 24 June 1998(1), the Commission can now provide the following information.

As a result of its request to the Greek authorities for information on the drainage system and the biological sewage treatment plant at Palio Kavalas, the Commission received a copy of the exchange of letters between the DEYA (The Public Water Supply and Drainage Company) of Kavala and the Eastern Macedonia Department of the Greek Technical Chamber. The Commission is sending this correspondence to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat.

It emerges from the correspondence that the issue has been resolved because the clarifications provided by DEYA mean that the Technical Chamber is satisfied with the work carried out.

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 157.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(8 September 1998)

Subject: Safety of children in aircraft

1. Is the Council aware that the Rhineland Technical Inspection Agency proved as early as August 1992 by the use of tests with dummies that the use of the "loop belt" poses a potential threat to the lives of children?

2. Is the Council aware that the European Aviation Safety Authority, with its regulation "JAR-OPS1" of 1 April 1998, actually made the use of the loop belt compulsory for Member State airlines, although it has long since been banned in America?

3. What immediate measures will the Council take to avert the danger to children's lives represented by the use of the loop belt?

4. When will the Council ensure that the use of different age-appropriate restraint systems for children in aeroplanes becomes mandatory?

5. Has the Council made funds available for the development of such restraint systems? If so, how much? If not, why not?

6. Does the Council share the view of the Member that the absence of safety devices, particularly for children under two, calls for urgent and immediate measures at European level, since action by individual Member States would be hard to achieve?

7. Does the Council share the Member's view that failure to act despite the overwhelming evidence would be tantamount to tacitly accepting the endangering of children's lives?

Reply

(9 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is certainly well aware of the great importance the Council attaches to matters regarding aviation safety.

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) are an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and its regulations are not binding in the territory of the Community except for the Joint Aviation Requirements adopted by the JAA (JARs) which are contained in Annex II to the Council Regulation (EEC) 3922/91 of 16 December 1991(1) on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation. Only such JARs are considered to be Community legislation. JAR-OPS1 is neither included in the above mentioned Annex II nor in a proposal submitted by the Commission to the Council in May 1996 to amend Council Regulation No 3922/91.

Regarding the improvement of the safety of children while travelling in aircraft, the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/98

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

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Amusement facilities and their disregard for human rights and dignity

The recent launch of an amusement called the "Original Shocker" - a mock electric chair - at an amusement park in Lloret de Mar, and the subsequent ban imposed on it by the Catalan authorities, have caused controversy and great concern over regulatory procedures and standards governing the amusements allowed to operate at amusement parks of this kind.

Although amusements are required to meet with the approval of the Directorate-General for Games and Shows, in practice many of them operate without that approval.

The said "electric chair" is plainly an advertisement for the death penalty and is probably the most outrageous example of a range of amusements at permanent and travelling amusement parks throughout the European Union which show no regard for the principles of human rights or animal welfare.

What monitoring and regulatory procedures has the Commission provided for to assess the standard and safety of amusements at touring amusement parks and fun fairs?

Given the growing popularity and proliferation of such leisure facilities, frequented for the most part by children and adolescents, should the current provisions at European level not be reviewed?

What measures will the Commission take to prevent amusements of this nature from undermining human rights?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

With regard to the safety aspects of amusement parks and the question of Community provisions in this field, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Oral Question H-669/97 by Mr Willockx during question time at Parliament's September 1997 session(1).

The existence in amusement parks of amusements such as the one described must be considered primarily with regard to their possible harmful moral and psychological effects, particularly on younger visitors.

Existing Community regulations which might apply to amusement parks concern principally the free movement of persons and services (EC Treaty, in particular Articles 52, 56, 59 and 66, or Directive 75/369/EEC on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of itinerant activities)(2).

The Member States are responsible for any measures or rules concerning the moral or psychological harm which might be caused by the amusement in question. Member States may restrict the marketing of this type of equipment on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security or the protection of the health and life of humans on the basis of Article 36 of the EC Treaty, provided that the measures adopted are proportionate to the objectives of protection. There are at present no plans for a European initiative harmonising provisions to safeguard mental health or moral development.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1997).

(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Right of association for soldiers

In the light of Parliament's resolution and the report by the Legal Affairs Committee (Doc. 1-1387/83) on the right of association for soldiers and Parliament's annual report on the right of association for soldiers (paragraphs 50-51) and on respect for human rights in the European Community, tabled on 21 March 1997 and accompanied by the resolution adopted on 18 March 1997, in which it again called for trade-union rights and freedom of expression to be granted to the armed forces.

Will the Commission say whether:

1. soldiers have been granted the right to found professional associations in all the Member States?

2. Italy supported the above-mentioned positions adopted by the EU?

3. there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled by professional soldiers' associations in order to be authorized by the Member States and if so what those conditions are?

4. it will state its general position on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The right of association is outside the scope of the Treaty (Article 137 of the future Treaty). Consequently, the issue of the right of association of the members of the armed forces falls exclusively within the competence of the Member States.

Unfortunately the information requested on the precise legal situation in Member States is not readily available. However, it is generally the case that the right of association of soldiers is subject to restrictions due to their specific functions.