ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4109/97 by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission (18 December 1997)

Subject: Support for organizations receiving operational grants

The Commission allocates operational grants to numerous organizations. The problem for the organizations is that they only receive information about the size of their grant at a late stage, in the middle of the year or in the autumn. This situation makes it impossible for them to plan activities sensibly and makes them uncertain about initiating projects which will cost money.

It would facilitate matters if organizations which had proved to be serious cooperation partners were paid half the operational grant for the coming year with the amount for the rest of the year being varied to take account of any changes in the amount for the whole year.

What is the Commission doing to enable operational grants to function better from the point of view of their users?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Community budget is not implemented by prior apportionment of operational appropriations among a large number of organisations. An organisation may obtain financial support from the Commission if it puts up a project which, firstly, matches a measure included in the general budget by the budgetary authority and if, then, that measure meets the specific requirements of the Community rules governing the implementation of the specific measure.

Hence the need for a specific review of the application from the future recipient by the Commission.

Proportionate allocation of appropriations as envisaged by the Honourable Member would not allow the Commission to comply with the requirements of (Article 2) of the Financial Regulation designed to ensure that public funds are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, and in particular those of economy and cost-effectiveness.

As to enhancing the efficiency with which operational appropriations are put to use, the 'specific review' mentioned earlier is increasingly spread uniformly over the entire year in order to ensure that the budget is executed in a way and to reduce delays between the lodging of an application and the Commission's response.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4189/97 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) and Guido Viceconte (UPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Community funds for the rebuilding of the Petruzzelli opera house in Bari

The Petruzzelli opera house in Bari, which was built between 1898 and 1903 and registered as a building of historical and artistic interest in 1954 and a traditional opera house in 1967, and which is the only privately-owned opera house in Europe, was extensively damaged by fire on 27 October 1991.

Another famous Italian opera house, the Fenice in Venice, met a similar fate in 1996, when it was totally destroyed.

Substantial Community funding has rightly been provided for the partial restoration of the Fenice; for some unknown reason, however, only ECU 80 000 have been allocated to the Petruzzelli opera house, for the partial restoration of its foyer.

Given the above, would the Commission state whether:

1. the smallness of the Community grant is due to the fact that, unlike the other European opera houses, the Petruzzelli is privately owned?

2. it would not agree that there is an extremely urgent need for Community funds to be released with a view to the completion of the rebuilding work at the Petruzzelli, given that the Messeni Nemagna family, which owns the opera house, does not have the funds required to complete the restoration work?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

1. As part of the support granted in 1994 for pilot projects involving the conservation of Europe's architectural heritage - the theme of which was theatres and opera houses - the Petruzzelli opera house in Bari, Italy, received a grant of some ECU 80 000 from the Commission.

As part of the preparation for the Raphaêl programme, the Commission launched other initiatives in support of the conservation of architectural heritage in 1995, 1996 and 1997, in various priority areas (religious and baroque buildings, decorative facades and pre-industrial architecture).

2. In the context of regional development initiatives (Structural Funds), the rebuilding of the opera house was listed as one of the beneficiaries under measure 6.3, 'Recovery of cultural property', of the operational programme cofinanced by the Structural Funds for the Puglia region during the period 1994-1999.

According to information received by the Italian authorities, a request for finance was submitted under this initiative, but was not accepted by the Italian regional authorities at that stage as some of the conditions for eligibility had not been fulfilled.

Even though the property is of public interest, as it is in private hands and is a potential source of profit, the level of cofinancing granted must be restricted to a percentage of the eligible expenditure, in accordance with the provisions laid down by Community regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3958/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Arms exports in Sweden

Is the Commission aware that in May 1997 the Swedish government forwarded a report to the Swedish Parliament entitled Swedish Arms Exports in 1996?

Can the Commission investigate which governments of EU Member States also provide their parliaments with such information on arms exports from their countries?

Is the Commission willing to request these annual reports, to combine them and to forward them with an inventory and comments to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of and welcomes the Swedish government's report 'Swedish arms exports in 1996' which was submitted to the Swedish Parliament.

Through public information the Commission is also aware that, in different forms, some Member States' governments notify their national parliaments on licensed arms exports.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the communication 'Implementing European Union strategy on defence-related industry' it adopted recently ((COM(97) 583 final. )). In this communication the Commission explains that an integrated European market for defence products should be set up using a combination of all the instruments at the Union's disposal. The communication consists of an action plan for defence-related industries as well as a proposal for a common position on drawing up a European armaments policy.

As part of this action plan the Commission will draw up a white paper formulating possible options for progress toward a common arms export policy, which will then also contribute to the establishment of a code of conduct.

As part of this white paper the Commission could for example suggest information exchange between Member States and the Community institutions on arms exports.

However, it is not foreseen that the Commission requests at this stage copies of Member States' reports on arms exports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (26 November 1997)

Subject: Sports broadcasting rights

Can the Commission confirm or deny that a Danish bill, which would grant two nationwide state TV stations sole rights to broadcast major national sporting events, conflicts with the EU directive? A private commercial channel had earlier bought the rights to broadcast sporting events and now claims that the Danish bill is contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. The private channel can be received throughout the country, but only by cable or satellite dish.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1998)

According to Article 3A of Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by 97/36/EC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities ((OJ L 202, 30.7.1997. )) each Member State may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such event via live or deferred coverage on free television. Such measures shall be immediately notified to the Commission. The Commission shall within three months from the notification verify that the measures are compatible with Community law. It shall seek the opinion of the contact committee set up by Article 23 A of the Directive.

The Commission has not yet received a notification from the Danish authorities pursuant to the Directive. It is consequently not possible for the Commission to express any opinion on the compatibility under Community law and in particular, with Article 90 of the EC Treaty or with the Directive itself, of the measures to be taken by the Danish government.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Paedophilia in nursery belonging to the EU

Nightmarish information has come to light of cases of paedophilia and sexual abuse of infants aged 2 and 3 years by staff of a private firm responsible for looking after the children in the Clovis nursery belonging to the Community Institutions.

The Institutions' staff unions have called for the immediate intervention of Commissioner Liikanen.

How does the Commission intend to respond to this situation to ensure that the children are properly protected and that those responsible for these unspeakable acts are punished?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1998)

In recent weeks certain newspapers have made much of alleged acts of paedophilia committed at a crèche attended by the children of European officials.

The investigation of such incidents is a matter for the Belgian authorities rather than for the Commission itself, and the case has in fact been in the hands of the Brussels Public Prosecutor's Office since June 1997.

From the outset the Commission has endeavoured to act in the best interests of the children and parents directly concerned. The Commission has made every effort to assist the judicial authorities with their enquiries, granting them access to the crèche premises as soon as this was requested. At a press conference held on 14 November 1997 the Public Prosecutor's Office confirmed this fact and drew attention to the need for confidentiality, to ensure that the investigations in progress were not jeopardised and to meet the parents' legitimate concern for the protection of their children.

The Commission's role has therefore been to comply with requests for assistance, to do what it can to protect the children, and to support the parents and keep them informed. With this in view, it has circulated a number of notices to parents and staff, organised information meetings for parents, and joined with the parents' associations in organising awareness-raising sessions given by SOS Enfants. The Member of the Commission with responsibility for personnel has had two meetings with representatives of the staff and the parents' associations, and security has been stepped up at the building housing the crèche.

The Commission has also tightened the checks which it makes on the quality of the staff employed by the company running the Clovis crèche, acting in accordance with the contract signed with this company in June 1995. It has asked the management of the crèche to take what precautions it can for the good of the children, pending the outcome of the investigations.

It goes without saying that there can be no question of sanctions until the judicial authorities have confirmed that an offence has been committed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3924/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Institutes which may receive support for their information work on EU enlargement to the East

Several Austrian institutes are interested in holding information events on the effects of enlargement towards the East for communities in Austrian border areas as well as in communities in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slowenia.

Can financial support be provided for events providing information and advice on the expected and probable implications of enlargement towards the East for communities on both sides of the EU's present external borders?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

The operations proposed might be eligible for funding under the Interreg II C 'Cadses' (Central Adriatic Danubian and south eastern European Space) programme. It would be necessary to formulate a project dealing with this theme and present it to the Austrian Cadses secretariat for consideration by those responsible. At present, there is already one project submission dealing with the effects of the enlargement of the Community.

The address of the Cadses secretariat is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3454/97 by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Support for the building industry in the cold weather zone

Building in Finland is exceptionally expensive because of the difficult conditions which exist in the northern region. During the long cold weather period the ground freezes to a considerable depth, which means that the foundations both of buildings and of roads and railways have to be protected by expensive special structures. The heating, water, sewerage and electricity supply systems also have to be protected.

Since the difference between the indoor and outside temperatures in Finnish buildings may be as much as 50°, the outer shell or casing of buildings must be made to withstand heating and moisture problems caused by temperature differences. The building methods called for are so complex that not all builders have been able to cope under the heavy pressure of costs. As a result, Finland has to foot a bill of FIM 60 bn for repairs arising from defective work, damp and mould problems.

To enable an acceptable standard to be achieved in the building industry in future, what does the Commission intend to do with a view to establishing a construction support fund for the cold weather zone?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of the high cost of construction due to quite severe weather conditions in the cold zone, particularly in Finland.

However, a specific aid programme for the building industry in the cold weather zone is not planned.

It should be noted that, from a regulatory point of view, essential requirements, in terms of weather constraints, have been taken into consideration in Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products ((OJ L 40, 11.2.1989. )), in order to ensure that work on new constructions is of a high standard in terms of reliability and durability.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/97 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment

In some situations where people wish for information in connection with Directive 90/313/EEC ((OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56. )), uncertainty may arise about how far private organizations or firms which carry out public environmental protection tasks are covered by the directive.

In this connection, can the Commission say which organizations carrying out public nature protection tasks - e.g. the protection of threatened or sick animals - are covered by the Directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment (90/313/EEC)? Where the Commission does regard an organization as covered by the directive, does this apply irrespective of the organization's legal status?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

Article 6 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment ((OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. )) stipulates that Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that information relating to the environment held by bodies with public responsibilities for the environment and under the control of public authorities is made available on the same conditions as those set out in the Directive on information on the environment held by public authorities, either by an intermediary of the competent public authority or directly by the bodies themselves.

The Directive sets out two conditions which the above-mentioned bodies must abide by in order to be covered by the provisions of this Directive. They must have public responsibilities for the environment and be under the control of public authorities. Therefore, if the Directive is to be applicable to it, a body, such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member, need only meet those two conditions. Without further information, the Commission cannot say whether or not the body mentioned in the present question is within the scope of Article 6 of Directive 90/313/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/97 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Total permissible weight of coaches in the EU

1. Is the Commission aware of the fact that there are different regulations in Germany and the United Kingdom concerning the total permissible weight of coaches (in Germany the permissible weight is 18 tonnes, in the UK only 17 tonnes)?

2. Do these British transport regulations, which have only been applicable since the beginning of the year, conflict with existing Community law?

3. Can the British authorities stop coaches from Germany weighing more than 17 tonnes from continuing their journeys on British territory and charge excessive rental costs for the provision of a replacement British coach?

4. If Community law is not affected by the transport regulations in the United Kingdom, does the Commission see any reason to require EU Member States to recognize one another's national transport regulations?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

1. The Commission is aware that the maximum permitted weight for two-axle vehicles (including touring coaches) circulating in the United Kingdom is seventeen tonnes, compared with eighteen tonnes in most Member States.

2. This situation is not in conflict with European legislation. Indeed, this matter has been recognised in European legislation since 1989, firstly in Council Directive 89/338/EEC of 27 April 1989 amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles ((OJ L 142, 25.5.1989. )), and subsequently in Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized weights in international traffic ((OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. )).

3. British authorities are, therefore, entitled to prevent touring coaches with a gross laden weight in excess of seventeen tonnes from circulating on their territory since such coaches are deemed to be overloaded under British law.

4. The current lower weight limit in the United Kingdom is permitted by means of a derogation laid down in Article 8 of Council Directive 96/53/EC. This derogation will expire on 31 December 1998, after which the United Kingdom will be obliged to allow coaches of up to eighteen tonnes gross laden weight. Given this timescale the Commission does not propose any actions in the meantime.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3964/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Discovery of networks marketing suspect meat

According to information submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament concerning its actions relating to the trade in meat infected with 'mad cow disease', some German undertakings have been involved in the whole business without any direct and radical measures apparently being taken against them.

It should also be noted that the Belgian undertaking 'TRAGEX - GEL' was operating since November 1996 without any official authorization, despite repeated warnings from the Commission to the Belgian authorities. This alarming revelation means that this undertaking must have been supplying its customers with unscreened meat for over six months.

Will the Commission say which controlling authority (UCLAF or other) has a list of customers of the Belgian, British and other undertakings involved in the networks marketing the suspect meat (which I would ask it to forward to me) and whether it has undertaken any detailed research into the role played by German undertakings in connection with the marketing of suspect meat in Community or other countries and, if so, what are its conclusions?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1998)

All cases of illegal traffic of British meat are currently under investigation by the national authorities in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland and the Netherlands and, of course, the United Kingdom. Judicial inquiries have been undertaken in Belgium, Germany, France and the Netherlands. According to the knowledge of the Commission, the meat involved in this illegal traffic was eligible to be placed on the market in the United Kingdom.

As far as the company TRAGEX - GEL is concerned, it has been operating without the necessary administrative approval, but under veterinary supervision.

The Commission is not in possession of a list of customers of the companies involved in connection with the traffic. The vast majority of the quantity concerned has been traced as being exported to third countries with refunds. The relevant third countries have been informed of this.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3701/97 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Effects of the French lorry drivers' strike on foreign hauliers

The strike in the French transport sector, which seeks by political means on a large scale to influence the pay settlements of French lorry drivers, is also having significant and far-reaching effects on foreign firms which use the French road network for transit. The disturbances caused are completely irrelevant to French internal labour issues.

What has the Commission done and what does it intend to do to protect the flow of transport from other EU countries in France and to provide full compesnation for the economic damage suffered as a result?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

The Commission has no legal basis for intervening in a national dispute between employers and trade unions unless a Member State is shown to be negligent in its duty to uphold the legal freedom of movement of goods and persons as laid down in the EC Treaty. Compensation for damages also falls within national competence.

The Commission is, however, ready to cooperate with the appropriate authorities in efforts to try to secure solutions that are satisfactory for all relevant parties. To this end Commissioners wrote on several occasions to French ministers urging them to re-establish free circulation on their road network and it has approached both the French authorities and professional road transport associations to ask them to pursue progress on compensation claims. The Commission does not, however, have any legal power to establish or manage compensation arrangements or to require payment when compensation provisions have been established under the national laws of Member States.