ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1502/97 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Languages used in invitations to tender in connection with Community programmes

Invitations to tender in connection with Community programmes are increasingly in English, briefings on such programmes are held in English, sometimes with very little interpretation, and requests for information on these scientific and research programmes available on Cordis or via ISPO are made in English.

Is this situation compatible with the Commission's stated commitment to a multilingual information society?

What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to meet the need for information on research programmes in all EU languages?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

Calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal in all the official Community languages. The languages used at meetings depend on the requirements of those present.

As the Commission has already pointed out (see the reply to Written Question No 3066/96 by Mr Bossi) ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), in the implementation of technological research and development programmes it pursues a policy of making the texts available to users in all Community languages. For practical and logistical reasons, however, it is not always possible to produce and publish the various language versions simultaneously. The availability of certain versions may thus be delayed.

The Commission has launched a number of initiatives designed to overcome language barriers, including the Multilingual Information Society programme, and has stepped up its endeavours to gear translation and interpretation provision to requirements and to incorporate advanced technical and language facilities.

Responding to the demands created by the increasing volume of communication and the expansion of subjects covered and languages used is a challenge to the Commission, which has limited human and budgetary resources. The Commission is, however, determined to bring about improvements by dint of coherent, sustained efforts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2263/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: European cooperation in Brazil

Will the Commission provide information on cooperation projects it has managed via NGOs or under the Structural Funds and the ESF and which have been implemented recently, are under way or are to be carried out in Brazil?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

A number of Commission-funded projects undertaken with Brazil are carried out by European or Brazilian non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Most are either social or environmental in nature.

It should be pointed out that neither the Structural Funds nor the European Social Fund offer scope for projects in Brazil.

Three kinds of project are carried out via NGOs:

- schemes of a primarily social nature (rural projects, support for agricultural training centres, youth organisations, women's projects, health etc.), which are selected on their merits;

- the projects making up the three-year programmes for street children and disadvantaged groups: the first, which covers four cities (Rio, Recife, Salvador and Belo Horizonte) is already under way, while the second, which is focused on disadvantaged groups in Rio and São Paulo, is in the process of being set up;

- individual environment projects or the projects making up the Amazonia pilot programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/97 by Per Stenmarck (PPE) to the Commission (28 April 1997)

Subject: Cars and new emission control technology

A new method of controlling exhaust emissions from new cars is likely to be introduced with effect from 1 January 2000, based on a new technology known as on-board diagnostics (OBD).

OBD has already been introduced in the USA, where it is compulsory for new cars and where free access to data and standardized connections has also been introduced.

The Commission's proposal for a directive on this subject does not contain any similar provisions concerning free access to standardized equipment.

Will the Commission take steps to safeguard consumer choice in relation to maintenance and repairs?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission fully recognises that access should be given to enable the qualified personnel of franchised dealers, non-franchised garages and roadside organisations to diagnose faults and repair vehicles that are equipped with on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. OBD systems can thus ensure that faulty vehicles are repaired as effectively as possible and pollutant emissions are kept under control.

The Commission's proposals for OBD therefore refer to international standard protocols for OBD systems, fault codes, the scan tools used to interrogate OBD systems and the tool-vehicle connector so that vehicles are equipped with OBD systems built to those standards enabling anyone with the standard tool to access OBD systems for the purpose of fault diagnosis. Such standardisation will avoid restrictions on the vehicle owner's freedom of choice of where to have his vehicle repaired.

While OBD will indicate that a component is faulty, a repairer will still need information (e.g. service manuals) to show where that component is installed on the vehicle and what steps to take to repair or replace it. The conditions of the block exemption Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 on selective distribution ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. )) require vehicle manufacturers to make available the information necessary to repair vehicles to parties outside their normal distribution network.

While the block exemption is due to end in 2002, the Commission is actively considering the need for any additional legislation that may be necessary to ensure that such OBD repair information is commercially available in the market place to the appropriate interested parties, thereby preserving the competitive nature of the vehicle repair business in line with the internal market and safeguarding consumer choice for repair.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Fire safety in hotels

Given the importance of tourism for the European economy, when will the Commission bring forward a proposal for a long-awaited directive on fire safety in hotels?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

The Commission has taken a number of initiatives in this area. These include Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1986. )) of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels, Council Directive 89/106/EEC ((OJ L 40, 11.2.1989. )) on construction products and the provisions on the detection of fire and fire-fighting in Council Directive 89/654/EEC ((OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. )) concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace.

Following the request to put forward a Directive on the safety of hotels based on the 1986 recommendation, the Commission arranged for a study to be carried out aimed chiefly at verifying whether each Member State had correctly interpreted all of the requirements of the recommendation (minimum requirements to enable hotels to accommodate people in acceptable conditions of safety throughout the Community) and transposed them into national law.

Most of the study's findings show that the requirements of the recommendation have in nearly all cases been adopted as national provisions and can therefore be regarded as minimum criteria which have been met and surpassed in most cases. Furthermore, the recommendation has had a considerable impact on places where the regulations did not go far enough since, in most cases, it has been transposed into national legislation almost as it stands.

The Commission therefore does not consider the preparation and adoption of a Directive to be the appropriate response to the real problems encountered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/97 by Hedy d'Ancona (PSE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Comenius project

1. By what percentage has the budget for the Comenius project been cut this year per country?

2. Is it true that the reduction is ca. 30% for the Netherlands?

3. Is this reduction a result of the fact that in the past the smaller EU countries have been able to use the budgets allocated to them, whereas the larger EU countries have had much greater problems? If so, what is the policy behind imposing reductions on the budgets of countries which have been successful in implementing EU rules?

4. What are the likely consequences of the cuts on the programme in the Netherlands, which has been successful hitherto?

5. How do these cuts tie in with the enthusiastic response of the Commission hitherto to the success of European exchange policy on education?

6. Is the Commission or the Council considering action to offset the likely detrimental effects of the cuts and, if so, what form will that action take?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

The budget allocated to the Member States and participating third countries for Comenius action 1 in 1996 and 1997 is indicated in a table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat. The reduction in 1997 is due to a reduction in the total budget attributed to Socrates (198.04 MECU in 1996 compared to 171.45 MECU in 1997).

The 1997 budget has been distributed according to the formula designed by the Commission on the basis of Decision No 819/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme Socrates ((OJ 87, 20.4.1995. )) (number of pupils, number of schools, number of teachers, gross domestic product by inhabitant, average cost of travel between the country of origin and the host country).

The budgetary cut is mitigated by the distribution of the 5% reserve established by the above mentioned Decision No 819/95/EC. This reserve is allocated on the basis of the number of applications from schools, allowing all participating countries to accept quality applications by schools and teachers. Taking this reserve into account, the budget allocated to the Netherlands has been reduced by 23% between 1996 and 1997.

The Commission welcomes with great enthusiasm the success of Socrates and particularly of Comenius, which represents the main innovation of the programme. It has therefore proposed to the Council and the Parliament a 50 MECU increase in Socrates budget for 1998 and 1999.

However, due to the large number of pupils in the Community (70 million), the Community programmes can only play an incitative role. It is up to the Member States to relay the Community's efforts in ensuring the development of cooperation between European schools.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1915/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Progress report on the GAL de Iniciativas Líder Alpujarra S.A. programme being carried out under the Leader II Community initiative

Following a visit by Commission officials to GAL Iniciativas Líder Alpujarra S.A. from 3 to 7 June 1996 a progress report was drawn up and was published in the national press. The report contained a number of unfavourable comments and even called for the initiative to be suspended. In view of the amount of time which has elapsed and given that the senior representatives of Líder Alpujarra deny that there is any basis for such serious accusations, would the Commission provide full, detailed clarification of the matter in order to re-establish a climate of trust between the company and the general public?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission carried out an audit in the area mentioned by the Honourable Member. The resulting report is the subject of internal consultation procedures, and complementary information has been sought from the Member State concerned.

Some elements of the draft report have been published in the national press without reference to the Commission and have given rise to misinterpretation.

The Honourable Member will be informed of the relevant findings when all the elements concerning this programme have been clarified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Mortgage and life insurance rights for non-British nationals in Britain

In families in Britain where the breadwinner is a national of another Member State and currently works in that state, what rights does that family have to secure a mortgage and obtain life insurance cover in Britain?

Is the Commission aware of any problems which are experienced and what action is taken to ensure that the single market operates in the field of mortgages and life insurance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

The Commission is not aware of any national provisions precluding the activities referred to in the question.

It should be pointed out that, under the Community Directives which give practical shape to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the financial services sector, anyone may request a mortgage loan and/or life assurance cover from any financial firm (credit institution or life assurance company) that has been duly authorized in the Community or in the European Economic Area, including one established in a Member State other than that in which he or she is resident.

Thus anyone in the same position as the family referred to in the question is free to approach any firm that has been authorized to grant mortgage loans and/or life assurance cover.

But it should be borne in mind that the acceptance or refusal of such a request is a matter for the firm's own commercial judgment. Before reaching a decision, the firm will examine the different components of the transaction and may be influenced by the location of the property or the fact that the person in question works and earns the bulk of his/her income in a Member State other than that in which he/she or the firm approached is established.

The decision whether or not to conclude such a contract is a matter of commercial judgment over which the Commission has no influence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Energy saving in the Ukraine

Given that some sources say that the Ukraine's energy efficiency is approximately 30% of the OECD average, what action has the EU taken to undertake/sponsor or jointly initiate energy-saving actions in that country?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

Since 1991, international aid - and especially of the Community - has supported Ukraine in restructuring its energy sector. This has been reinforced by the group of seven (G7) which required the restructuring of the energy sector as a pre-condition to its assistance to Ukraine for the closure of Chernobyl.

The Community developed a strategy of support for the restructuring of the Ukrainian energy sector by funding co-operation programmes (Tacis, Synergy, Thermie) which focused on a holistic approach for progress across all areas of energy generation and usage.

Saving and energy efficiency has been a priority for Tacis since the programme began. Over the period 1991-1996, 25 MECU went to saving and efficiency projects in the Ukraine. The Tacis project 'Global energy saving strategy for Ukraine' has become the basis for subsequent work in Ukraine. The State committee for energy conservation has been established, with the help of Tacis and Synergy, specifically to create and implement the national energy conservation policy. Energy saving issues have been addressed in the metallurgical, pulp and paper, electric power, engineering, food and other branches of industry. In addition the Community is supporting, through grant funding and technical assistance, the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) efforts to set up an energy saving financing scheme in the framework of the G7 action plan.

In the future, efforts to implement energy efficiency policies and programmes in all sectors of the Ukrainian economy will be pursued. Specific actions will include the definition of legislative provisions and incentives for energy saving; the promotion of financing and investment mechanisms; the development of training programmes; and the implementation of pilot projects to further instil awareness in the industrial sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 -Application of sensitivity limit values

Are the sensitivity limits used to demonstrate genetic modification to be continuously updated in line with the state of the art?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/97 by Vincenzo Viola (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Transparency and the memorandum submitted to the Commission on the project for the construction of a reservoir on the Rio di Monte Nieddu in Sardinia, Italy

In response to an unsigned memorandum submitted to DG XVI, which has since proved totally unfounded, the commencement of building work on the reservoir on the Rio di Monte Nieddu in Sardinia was postponed for a long period of time, causing major financial losses, jobs losses and further delays in the provision of water to a large part of the island.

Does the Commission intend to leave open the possibility of such errors occurring again in future by choosing not to change its internal rule which guarantees anonymity, and thereby impunity, even to those who, as in the case in point, provide wrong information? Is such an attitude in keeping with the much-vaunted policy of transparency?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1997)

The Community support framework (1994-99) Water Resources operational programme for the Objective 1 regions of Italy provides for the creation of infrastructure to collect, store, transport and distribute water, and of accompanying installations. The programme is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Works.

In June 1996 the Commission received a complaint regarding the Monti Nieddu dam project. The complaint, which was not anonymous, was lodged by Italian environmental associations, which reported, inter alia, an alleged infringement of Directives 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) and 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). On the basis of the precise, factual information it provided, the complaint was registered and the Commission launched an enquiry to determine whether Community environment law had indeed been infringed. In the light of information received from the national and regional Italian authorities, and in particular the dates on which authorisations were granted, the Commission was able to conclude that the project did not contravene the abovementioned Directives. The complaint file was therefore closed.

While under way, the Commission's enquiry did not - nor could it - serve to block or delay the commencement of work on the Monti Nieddu reservoir. The Ministry of Public Works, which completed its examination of the project on 9 December 1996, gave the go-ahead for financing by Decree No 25 of 27 December 1996.

On 21 March 1997, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation No 4258/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 on the European Regional Development Fund ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), the same Ministry sent the Commission a request for funding for the dams of the 'Rii Monti Nieddu e Is Canargius', for a total cost of ECU 62 million. The Commission is currently examining the request.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (25 June 1997)

Subject: Novel food regulation No 258/97 - Monitoring of products free of 'genetic engineering'

1. Will the research laboratories also be available to manufacturers not supplying products produced by genetic engineering processes and who wish to have this checked?

2. Will such research be free of charge, in order not to place the manufacturers in question at a disadvantage?

3. On the other hand, will the tests cover not only those foods which manufacturers declare not to have been produced by genetic engineering?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2113/97, E-2115/97, E-2117/97, E-2119/97, E-2121/97, E-2123/97, E-2127/97, E-2129/97, E-2131/97, E-2133/97, E-2135/97, E-2137/97, E-2139/97, E-2141/97, E-2143/97, E-2145/97, E-2147/97, E-2149/97, E-2151/97, E-2153/97, E-2155/97, E-2157/97, E-2159/97, E-2161/97, E-2163/97, E-2165/97, E-2167/97, E-2169/97, E-2171/97, E-2173/97, E-2175/97, E-2177/97, E-2179/97, E-2181/97, E-2183/97, E-2185/97, E-2187/97, E-2189/97, E-2191/97, E-2193/97, E-2195/97, E-2197/97, E-2199/97, E-2201/97, E-2203/97 and E-2205/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1997)

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