ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3022/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Public footpaths

Is the Commission aware that a number of walking routes have been created in the European Union which are identified by the letters G.R.?

Is the Commission aware, furthermore, that these footpaths are an important way of promoting rural tourism?

Will the Commission help to ensure that paths leading from one Member State to another are marked more clearly than they are at present?

Will the Commission also take measures to ensure the production of a publication indicating the routes of long-distance footpaths and how they link up with other pedestrian infrastructure, similar to that which exists for cyclepaths?

Will the Commission seek the creation of a legal status for public footpaths crossing public and private land?

If so, how?

If not, why not?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1998)

The Commission is aware of the existence of walking routes for ramblers signposted with the initials "G.R.", signifying "Grande Randonnée - ramblers' route". The Commission is, however, not aware of any studies on the impact of such footpaths on the development of rural tourism.

The Commission does not have a legal basis for regulating how these paths are marked, how they link up between Member States, nor to ensure the publication of maps of these long-distance footpaths. These issues are the responsibility of the various organisations which lay, equip, signpost and maintain these paths in the Member States. The Commission also has no legal basis for seeking legal status for public footpaths crossing public and private land. This issue, which particularly concerns rights of property, access and use, is the responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

However, in the framework of Rural Development Programmes operating in certain areas of the Community, it may happen that structural funds are used to co-finance operations related to footpaths created by Member States' authorities and marked "GR". Such co-financed projects are most common in tourist areas focused particularly on nature and adventure tourism, which provide lookout posts for observing wild life, or studying biotopes, etc. When these footpaths cross private land, Member States take prior action so they remain open to the general public. As regards publishing maps of these long-distance footpaths, co-financing is also possible in the framework of these same programmes, when it is felt such information material will contribute to promoting tourism as a way to maximise the pay-back from investments and local economic potential.

Lastly, in certain geographic areas, these paths may even be linked to others in non-Community areas, as is the case between Austria and Hungary or between Germany and Poland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3906/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Lack of provision for bank statements in relation to the sale of olive residue

In the new two-stage extraction process the olives are pressed so thoroughly that the residue is becoming worthless.

The rules in force do not contain any provisions in this regard, and do not even make provision for the presentation of bank statements in the event of sales of residue (whereas they do provide for the presentation of bank statements in relation to payments for the oil).

Will the Commission act to close this loophole?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4043/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Puerto Morazan - Hurricane Mitch

How much money has the EU made available for emergency aid for Nicaragua and Honduras? Can this be increased?

How much EU aid is channelled through the NGO community and international relief agencies, rather than the Nicaraguan Government? What steps are being taken to increase this, so that all aid is channelled through the NGO community and international relief agencies?

What steps are being taken to mobilise all EU Member State helicopters in the vicinity?

How much construction help, in the form of road and bridge repair teams and equipment, has been sent to Nicaragua and Honduras? What steps are being taken to increase this and speed up their mobilisation?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

So far the emergency aid mobilised by the Commission amounts to 8,2 million euro for Honduras and 5,5 million euro for Nicaragua. The Commission adopted a first decision on 4 November 1998 (6,8 million euro) in order to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable population throughout the region (food parcels, emergency relief items, medical support). A further relief programme, mainly focusing on water sanitation, health and housing was adopted by the Commission on 21 December 1998 (9,5 million euro). Furthermore, the Commission had reconverted 3 million euro from other programmes, mainly regional disaster-preparedness programmes, towards emergency aid for the affected population.

During the course of the year the Commission will continue to increase its support to the region through the financing of projects (8 million euro), which will include a sizeable rehabilitation component in view of preparing the transition towards more structured rehabilitation and economic reconstruction aid from other budget sources.

The Commission works mainly in partnership with non-governmental organisations, the specialised agencies of the United Nations and international bodies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the case of Central America, aid is being channelled through the European non governmental organisations (NGO) which were already working in the region and through the Spanish, German and Austrian Red Cross in co-operation with their sister organisations from the affected countries.

The Commission understands that the United States and Mexico in particular deployed helicopters to Nicaragua and Honduras thereby playing a lead role in bringing relief to cut-off villages.

The Commission does not finance any reconstruction help in the form of road and bridge repair teams or equipment in Honduras and Nicaragua. However, it provides financial support for emergency reconstruction of hospitals, private houses and water installations. It recently mobilised 8,2 million euro for technical assistance needed for the preparation and implementation of a regional reconstruction programme in Central America. Details of this reconstruction programme will be contained in a communication which the Commission will present around March 1999 to the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4020/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(11 January 1999)

Subject: Review of the war crimes trial of Dragan Opacic in Sarajevo

On 2 April 1995 Dragan Opacic, at the time 19 years old and a refugee from Kladusa (Northwest Bosnia) serving with the Bosnian-Serb army, was taken prisoner by the Bosnian government army. After a short trial before a court in Sarajevo which did not, in any respect, comply with the criteria governing trials in a constitutional state, he was condemned six weeks later to ten years in prison for "war crimes". He was alleged to have committed these crimes against Bosnian Muslims as a guard at Trnopolje "concentration camp". The Bosnian government then offered him as a witness in the Tadic case heard by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. During that trial as "witness L" he made detailed and serious accusations against Tadic concerning crimes alleged to have been committed by the latter (also in the Trnopolje camp).

Tadic's counsel Prof. Wladimiroff confronted Opacic with so many inaccuracies and contradictions in his statements that Opacic eventually admitted that he was not a camp guard, had never been in the Trnopolje camp and had never met Tadic. He stated that the Bosnian authorities had coached him for several weeks to make a false statement against Tadic on pain of death- Inquiries by Prof. Wladimiroff also revealed that Trnopolje was not a "concentration camp" but a temporary transit camp for refugees waiting to be transported to a final destination.

Shortly afterwards, with the connivance of the Dutch authorities and despite his request for asylum, Opacic was returned by the tribunal to Bosnia where he is now serving the remainder of his 10-year sentence.

Does the Council agree that this affair is a violation of the legal principles practised in the Member States of the Union? Is the Council prepared to take action aimed, at least, at a review of Opacic's trial in Sarajevo?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

The Council is aware that Mr Opacic has complained to OSCE human rights officers that he did not receive a fair trial. However, the Council finds it difficult to comment on the fairness of a trial which, like other proceedings at that time, was not being monitored by the international community.

The Council understands that, on 23 September 1998, Mr Opacic also filed an application to the Human Rights Chamber established under Annex 6 of the Dayton Peace Agreement to consider alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial.

This application is pending with the Chamber and the Council is of the opinion that any action it intends to take in this case should be considered in the light of the decision of the Chamber.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4090/98

by Luciana Castellina (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Future of the language sections in the European Schools

The next meeting of the Board of Governors of the European Schools, which will be held in Brussels in January 1999, is due to take a decision on the request made by the Italian Government, on 5 July 1998, for the creation of a third Italian language section in the European Schools in Brussels. It is also due to respond to the invitation issued by the Italian Government to a seminar to reflect on the future of, and a renewed role for, the European Schools.

In view of the fact that the creation and maintenance of language sections are currently not governed by objective and transparent criteria (as demonstrated by the decisions of the Board of Governors taken in April 1998 in Copenhagen, which led to certain language sections being created and a refusal to create others), and bearing in mind the importance of tackling the problem as soon as possible, particularly in view of the forthcoming enlargements, does the Commission intend to act to help defend the plurality of languages and cultures in the European Schools and to further the process of reflection on their future and renewing their role?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Respect for cultural diversity and multilingualism is one of the principles underlying the organisation of education in the European Schools, as set out in the Statute of 12 April 1957. To meet that end, the European Schools are divided into language sections. It is for the Board of Governors, the competent intergovernmental body in this area, to decide on the number of language sections in each of these Schools.

The Commission, as a member of the Board of Governors, has always defended that principle in the schools while ensuring that the funds available are put to the best use, and has supported the creation of language sections where that has proved necessary.

Modernisation of the European Schools is a constant concern of those responsible for managing them. A new Convention was signed on 21 June 1994 to update the Convention of 12 April 1957; it is now being ratified by the Member States. A sub-committee for education was given the task of studying longer-term arrangements; it met several times within the framework of the Board of Governors in 1993 and 1994. Its task was subsequently handed over to a Working Party of the Board of Governors, which, since 1996, has continued to examine how the system could be streamlined and to look for alternative formats. This year the Working Party is to present a document listing all the criteria for improving the system.

The Commission, which attaches great importance to the smooth operation of the European Schools, plays an active role in the modernisation process. A Commission proposal put to the Ministers of Education meeting in the Council resulted in the new Convention being signed in 1994. The Commission takes part in studies on the future of the European Schools carried out by the Working Party set up by the Board of Governors.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3572/98

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 November 1998)

Subject: Transport of cash

The Finnish Cabinet has taken a decision in principle to adopt an action programme for 1999-2001 aimed at combating economic crime and the "grey" economy.

The decision refers to a proposal - reportedly being drafted by the Commission - to introduce a general requirement to report the transport of cash across the Union's internal borders.

Is it true that the Commission is drafting such a proposal and, if so, is it not contrary to the principles relating to the free movement of capital?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The Commission has no plans at the moment to propose a requirement to report the transport of cash across Member States' borders.

However, the subject is covered in the forty recommendations of the financial task force on money laundering (FATF). FATF is an intergovernmental body which aims to develop and promote policies to combat money laundering. All Member States and the Commission belong to FATF.

Recommendation 22 of the forty recommendations states that "to facilitate detection and monitoring of cash transactions, without impending in any way of freedom of capital movements, members could consider the feasibility of subjecting all cross-border transfers, above a given threshold, to verification, administrative monitoring, declaration or record keeping requirements". A number of Member States also have controls with these purposes today, in line with this recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3996/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Fisheries agreement between the EU and the Republic of South Africa

In view of the progress apparently made in the negotiations on the conclusion of a general trade agreement between the EU and the Republic of South Africa and the deadlock which seems to be occurring at the same time over the fisheries agreement with the same country, will the Commission say what stage has been reached in the negotiations on the conclusion of a fisheries agreement with South Africa?

Can it confirm that the general cooperation agreement will include South African fishery products, which will have free access to EU markets?

If so, does it not consider it contradictory that the EU is unable to conclude a fisheries agreement with South Africa, yet is having to accept the entry of South African fishery products into its markets under the general trade agreement?

What actions and measures does the Commission plan to take to protect the interests of Community fisheries?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

The formal negotiations for a separate fisheries agreement between South Africa and the Community have not yet really started despite the numerous exploratory talks held between both parties since 1996.

With respect to negotiations for an economic co-operation agreement, the chapter concerning fisheries in Title IV of the draft agreement envisages a joint declaration stating that: "The Parties will make their best endeavours to negotiate and conclude the fisheries agreement referred to in Article (Fisheries) no later than the end of year 2000".

According to the same draft, tariff concessions for fisheries products "shall only come into effect once the fisheries agreement referred to in Article (Fisheries) of this agreement has been signed." Therefore, there is a linkage between the co-operation agreement and the negotiation of a fisheries agreement. There will not be an improved access to the Community market for South African fisheries products unless a separate mutually beneficial fisheries agreement is signed. Access to the Community market would then be improved in stages, according to an agreed calendar.

In Vienna, the European Council invited the Council to bring the negotiations to a conclusion at the latest before the European Council of March 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3976/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)

There have been articles in the Dutch press recently (Volkskrant of 3 and 5 December 1998) on the problems with the storage capacity of the high flux reactor in Petten; the articles contain new information on this problem. Since the 1980s the United States have been calling for a switch to low-grade uranium because of the interests expressed by terrorists in high-grade uranium. The Commission has not responded to this hitherto because low-grade uranium does not provide sufficient neutron flux which is needed for the nuclear research carried out in the reactor. The cost of conversion is also too high, according to the Commission, and no money is available.

1. Fuel type has recently been developed which does produce sufficient neutron flux. Conversion of the Petten reactor would therefore no longer be a technical problem. Has the research into the gradual conversion of the reactor in Petten, carried out by AEA Technology, a research institute from Winfrith (Great Britain), demonstrated that full conversion would be possible in the space of a year? Will the costs of conversion actually be lower than previous estimates, since the reactor could remain operational during the conversion?

2. The United States have given an undertaking that if the reactor is converted they would take the spent fuel rods for central storage in the USA. This might prove a solution to the problem of storage of nuclear waste in Petten. Would it not be sensible for the Commission to decide on a change to low graded uranium?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

A new high-density fuel which, however, only contains low-grade uranium has been devised. Although the experience accumulated is insufficient one may envisage its use in the high-flux reactor (HFR) by replacing highly-enriched uranium fuel.

Thermo-hydraulic checks are in progress in order to ensure the option of having that reactor operate on this new type of fuel under conditions similar to those currently applying to the production of medical isotopes. A conclusion is expected by February 1999.

The cost of conversion would apparently be high in that conversion should be gradual, in step with the availability of new fuel elements. That conversion could be completed within ten reactor cycles (12 months), but it is at the moment impossible to set its starting date.

The conversion decision could enable the American Department of Energy (DOE) to accept the spent fuel.

That possible means of disposing of irradiated fuel only concerns 25 % of HFR fuel-element use and it is to be considered as an alternative to storage at Habog- the central storage body for radioactive wastes (Covra).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Restrictions on movements of domestic pets

Is the Commission aware of the restrictions on the movement of domestic pets between Ireland and other parts of the EU, and does it agree that these restrictions are unjustified on scientific grounds, that they are unnecessary and that they are contrary to the principle of free movement of persons and their property?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problems which the Honourable Member has mentioned concerning rabies quarantine regulations.

An alternative system to quarantine in Ireland has been applicable from 1 July 1994, for traded dogs and cats entering the Member State. This system involves vaccination and blood testing plus certification that the traded dogs and cats have been reared in isolation. The dogs and cats must be electronically identified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Delays in completing Athens underground rail system

In November 1998, the letters of guarantee to the Greek Government signed by the company contracted to build the Athens underground rail system came into force, as November was specified as the month for completion of the work. The penalty is Drs 15 billion. The consortium is now asking the Government not to invoke the clauses concerning failure to complete the work on the specified date and to agree to a total revision of the schedule, changing the completion date to 2002, and to its additional financial demands for Drs 53 billion because of the extra geological problems it has encountered.

The Greek Government and the consortium have reportedly reached a gentlemen's agreement to break the deadlock.

Will the Commission say:

1. what its position is on this gentlemen's agreement in the light of the objectives of the 2nd CSF, for which the Commission is also responsible;

2. whether the budget for the project has been revised and, if so, how many times;

3. whether the Union's funding for the project has been revised and for which measures and what sums were involved?

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

(28 January 1999)

The Greek Government has confirmed to the Commission that it has not concluded any gentleman's agreement with the consortium building the Athens underground rail system.

It has informed the Commission of recent negotiations covering a range of technical problems with this large-scale project. These negotiations, held under the provisions of the contract in force, resulted in an agreement between the two parties involving no modification whatsoever of the contract.

The original contract for construction of the system, signed in 1991, was adjusted in 1994. This revision incorporated a 14,64 % increase in the contract budget. The revised 1994 contract is still in force and it is under its terms that an additional amount of 5 % has been granted to the consortium for additional work to boost the safety of the system itself and the buildings of Athens, including construction of trial tunnels. A further amount of 1 % has also been granted for various improvements to the project.

Community funding for the project under the Community support framework for Greece for 1994-99 is EUR 783 million from the European Regional Development Fund. This amount has not been raised since the CSF was approved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3497/98

by Helwin Peter (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Planned factory outlet mall in Zweibrücken

In its answer to my Written Question E-1408/98(1) the Commission states that it has requested additional information from the German federal government in this matter.

Has the Commission received the information, can a decision now be taken in this matter and, if so, what decision has been taken?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The information from the German government mentioned in answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1408/98 reached the Commission. However, the documents did not allow a conclusive analysis, especially with regard to the question whether state aid is involved and whether it is to be regarded as compatible with the common market. Therefore, an on-the-spot-investigation was held together with the German authorities at federal level as well at the Land level at the end of October 1998. The oral arguments then presented indicate the complaints are ready for decision. As soon as the German authorities have sent the written documents in order to substantiate their orally presented arguments, the Commission will address to the complainants a letter containing an analysis of the situation.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 128.