ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1483/98 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission (7 May 1998)

Subject: Consequences of the Kohll (C-158/96) and Decker (C-120/95) cases

On 28 April 1998 the European Court of Justice ruled in the Kohll and Decker cases that prior approval by the social security authority in the country of insurance for the reimbursement of the costs of health care provided in other Member States was in conflict with the free movement of goods and services.

Can the Commission state what consequences the above judgments will entail for sickness funds and sickness-costs insurers in Europe?

What (legal) measures - as promised by the Commission Member Mr Flynn at the European Parliament's plenary sitting on 30 March 1998 - will the Commission propose to bridge gaps in European legislation relating to the financing of cross-border health care now that judgment has been given in the Decker and Kohll cases?

By what date does the Commission expect to submit the promised (legislative) proposals?

What solutions (or guidelines on solutions) will the Commission propose for maintaining financial equilibrium between national schemes for the reimbursement of sickness costs in the Member States?

How in that connection does the Commission interpret the ruling by the European Court that a serious encroachment on the financial equilibrium of social security schemes represents a compelling reason of general interest whereby prior authorization may be justified.

What additional action will the Commission propose - given that the judgments are further-reaching that expected - to guarantee the free movement of persons, having regard to the above ruling?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1998)

Several questions arise as regards the implications of the Kohll and Decker judgments for the social security systems in the Member States. Currently the Commission is examining these questions.

The Court of Justice does not challenge the validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. )) and more particularly Article 22 thereof. In its judgment the Court refers directly to the EC Treaty, which creates direct effects for the European citizen: free movement of services and goods and reimbursement of costs incurred at the rates of the Member State of affiliation. The prior authorisation provided for in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and forms E 111 and E 112 may be more favourable to the interested party to the extent that this authorisation makes it possible to fully recoup the costs incurred.

Quite apart from the two judgments in question, the Commission intends to present a proposal to fill the gaps in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in regard to the reimbursement of health care costs for cross-border workers, in the context of simplifying and reforming Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. This proposal will be adopted at the end of 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0767/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Demarcation of Javari Valley, Brazil

The Javari valley is one of the largest indigenous areas in Brazil, lying on the border with Peru. It comprises over eight million hectares and is home to six indigenous tribal peoples, and includes the largest group of uncontacted people in the Amazon. These peoples' land is under intense pressure from timber companies and drug traffickers, and the uncontacted people especially are vulnerable to disease and violence from outsiders.

If the isolated people of the Javari valley are to survive, the area must be demarcated. European funding has been assigned to demarcate the Javari valley as a priority area, but the Brazilian government shows no sign of carrying out this urgently needed demarcation.

Will the Commission explain the current position and state when the demarcation will be carried out?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1998)

The legal situation of the Javari indigenous lands is that access is banned by Decree 1849/E of 8 April 1985. The decree definitively proclaiming the boundaries of these lands is expected this year, which will enable demarcation to begin. This demarcation has been planned and figures among the Brazilian Government's priorities in the PPG7, a process that Germany has helped finance.

The project currently being considered by the Commission is an ethno-environmental protection project for the Javari lands. It involves a comprehensive strategy to protect both their peoples and forest resources: monitoring the land-use patterns of uncontacted groups; surveillance measures; health monitoring; building the capacities of indigenous communities contacted to manage the lands raising awareness among the non-indigenous people of the need to protect the lands.

This project is not aimed at carrying out the demarcation, but at facilitating it by providing all the information necessary, particularly on areas where there may be uncontacted groups.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1043/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Construction project in the Turkish nature reserve of Kabak Koyou

On 8 August 1997 a region in Turkey called Gemile Koyou was designated a nature reserve. This region of unique natural beauty is one of the most important reserves and egg-laying sites of the caretta-caretta turtle. Despite the comprehensive rules that have been adopted classifying the region a protected area under Turkish law, a hotel complex is now being completed there. This construction project and the necessary infrastructures will permanently damage the region and pose a threat to the survival of the caretta-caretta turtle.

1. Does the Commission possess any information about the above project, and if so, what information?

2. Does it see any possibility of exerting pressure on Turkey, within the framework of international conventions on the protection of endangered species, to stop this building project going ahead?

3. Does it see any other possibility of preserving one of the last reserves of the caretta-caretta turtle which in imminent danger of extinction?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1998)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Gemile Koyu is officially listed in Turkey as a protected site. No permission has as yet been given to build a hotel. The authorities are now undertaking an in-depth study of the reserve to see what degree of protection its unique characteristics require. A decision will then be made on whether or not to build a hotel.

As things stand, the contractual relations that the Community has with Turkey do not allow it to intervene in this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0852/98 by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1998)

Subject: European child labour directives

Can the Commission report on current progress in the implementation of the European directives on child labour legislation?

Is data available for the various Union Member States? In particular, what is the current situation in France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 May 1998)

The Commission cannot yet take stock of the application in the fifteen Member States of the provisions of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work.

Not all national measures have been communicated to the Commission. Procedures have been initiated against several Member States under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, on the grounds of non-communication or incomplete communication.

Concerning the Member States specifically mentioned by the Honourable Member, the situation is as follows:

* France has communicated a large part of its legislation in force and has pointed out that the Community Directive still necessitates a number of adjustments to existing regulations, which will take place in the near future;

* the United Kingdom has communicated only part of its regulations;

* Germany and Portugal have communicated their national provisions on this subject, which are currently being scrutinised.

Only when it has received all the communications from the Member States will the Commission be able to examine the overall situation as regards application of the provisions on this subject in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/98 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Ban on all forms of advertising or financial sales promotion of tobacco products

1. To what extent did the Commission take account, when drawing up its proposal for a ban on advertising and sponsorship, of the requirement to respect the freedom of opinion guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention and Article F(2) of the EU Treaty?

2. Does a total ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship fall within the scope of the public health clause contained in Article 10(2) of the ECHR? If so, does this not fundamentally call into question the argument that the proposal's main emphasis is on eliminating obstacles to the free movement of goods and services in the internal market?

3. Can Article 100a of the EC Treaty justifiably be proposed as a legal basis for the harmonisation of public health measures, when Article 129 of the EC Treaty expressly excludes harmonization in that area?

4. In view of the fact that one of the aims of the Treaty is to abolish existing restrictions on freedom to provide services (Article 63(1) of the EC Treaty), can a proposal based on Article 66 of the EC Treaty (freedom to provide services) introduce a total, across-the-board ban on advertising and sponsorship?

5. To what extent is a total ban of all forms and means of tobacco advertising at Community level compatible with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in Article 3b of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The Commission's amended proposal for a Council directive ((OJ C 129, 21.5.1992. )) on tobacco advertising is a measure for completion of the internal market. Its legal basis is considered sufficient and appropriate. The text respects fully other EC Treaty requirements. The Council adopted a common position on (EC) No 15/98 on 12 February 1998 ((OJ C 91, 26.3.1998. )). The Parliament endorsed the common position of the Council (i.e. without amendment) at its plenary session on 13 May.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0644/98 by Jorge Hernandez Mollar (PPE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Conditions for upgrading the Spanish 'Ingeniero Técnico' engineering qualification in comparison with others

What has led the Commission to require that Mr Vicente Alonso Morales, holder of the Spanish 'Ingeniero Técnico' qualification and candidate for open competition COM/A/1047 (OJ C 145 A, 13.5.1997), should have successfully completed the equivalent of a full-length Spanish degree course, given that such a requirement does not appear in the text of the notice of competition?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0635/98, E-0636/98, E-0637/98, E-0638/98, E-0639/98, E-0640/98, E-0641/98, E-0642/98, E-0643/98, E-0644/98, E-0645/98, E-0669/98, E-0670/98, E-0671/98, E-0672/98, E-0673/98, E-0674/98, E-0675/98, E-0676/98, E-0677/98, E-0678/98, E-0679/98, E-0724/98, E-0725/98, E-0726/98, E-0727/98 and E-0728/98 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

The Commission feels that most of the information requested by the Honourable Member is contained in its answers to written questions E-2749/97 by Ms Garcia Arias ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998. )) and E-4186/97 by Ms Dührkop Dührkop ((OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15. )). The Commission would accordingly refer the Honourable Member to these answers, where it gave a full statement of its general approach to qualifications giving access to A/LA posts in the European public service and more specifically to qualifications held by Spanish technical engineers.

The correct translation of 'diploma universitario' into German is 'abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium', and that is the term used on the notice of competition COM/A/1047 (97/C 145 A/02) published in the Official Journal. With regard to Competition COM/A/720 and COM/A/821, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the judgment given on 3 March 1994 by the Court of First Instance in Case T-82/92 Cortés Jiménez v Commission.

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the candidate at competition COM/A/104 has brought an action, registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance under number T-299/97 on 1 December 1997. Accordingly the Commission cannot give an answer because the matter is sub judice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/98 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: Health of young people

As many studies now indicate that young people in Europe are not looking after themselves properly, what action will the Commission be taking to develop health services for young people (health services at school and university, preventive medicine, etc.)?

Are there not grounds for launching a specific public health programme?

Does the Commission envisage specific measures in this area?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is well aware that investing in the health of young people is a cornerstone of European public health policies.

This perception is reflected in the European public health action programmes, be it in the fields of cancer, aids, drugs, or health promotion, where youth is among the main target groups. Many projects are supported by these programmes, for example the European network of health promoting schools, a joint initiative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and the World health organisation (WHO) Europe. This network now comprises 38 countries in Europe, and involves over one million pupils. The health promoting school aims to achieve healthy lifestyles for the whole school population by developing supportive environments conductive to the promotion of health. It offers opportunities for the provision of a safe and health-enhancing social and physical environment.

Through active collaboration between pupils, staff, parents and community the health promoting school offers a number of benefits, including the promotion of pupils' self esteem enabling them to fulfil their physical, psychological and social potential.

Some countries have successfully disseminated the concept throughout the school system. Others still have to face the challenges of implementation with the blessing of decision-makers in educational and political structures.

The Commission is also working on a report on the state of health of young people in the Community, which will be published in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/98

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Second disposal shaft/silo at the Dounreay plant in Caithness, Scotland

In the light of the admission by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 2 February 1998 that there is a second disposal shaft/silo at the Dounreay plant in Caithness, Scotland, into which unregulated radioactive waste has been dumped since 1971, will the Commission update the details provided to Parliament in its answer to written question P-3167/96(1) on 16 December 1996?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 1998)

The silo at Dounreay is an approved storage facility subject to regular monitoring by the British regulator, the Nuclear installations inspectorate (NII). A description of the silo and its contents are contained in the publicly available document(2) which was referenced in the reply to written question P-3167/96 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz(3). The British Government has also announced that the wastes are to be retrieved from both the intermediate based shaft and the silo at Dounreay for treatment.

The Commission would also like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question P-661/98 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz(4) on the same subject. The silo and its contents have been under Euratom safeguards since the accession of the United Kingdom to the Community and the Commission has been and is being provided with all the information required to perform the safeguards activities foreseen by the Euratom Treaty.

(1) OJ C 87, 14.3.1997, p. 124.

(2) DOE/RAS/96.001 (UK Nirex Ltd Report No 695 of May 1996).

(3) OJ C 83, 14.3.1997.

(4) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 113.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: The EU's northern dimension

At the Luxembourg summit it was decided at Finland's initiative to place the European Union's northern dimension on the agenda. How, and on what time-scale, will the Commission start preparations to move this initiative forward?

In what way will the reform of the TACIS programme take into account the objectives of the northern dimension with regard to the environment, security, energy and cooperation in border regions?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 1998)

The Commission, invited by the Luxembourg and Cardiff European Councils, will present an interim report at the Vienna European Council in December 1998. Preparatory work has started.

Equally, the preparation for a new Tacis regulation is currently underway. During this process the Commission will surely reflect on the place of the Northern Dimension in the new programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0936/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Court proceedings in other countries

Does the Commission not agree that in principle infringements of the European rules in respect of Regulations 3820/85(1) and 3821/85(2) can be prosecuted in any Member State of the EU?

Is it the Commission's opinion that there should be an obligation on Member States that those of their subjects who infringe the rules outside their own territory can be prosecuted in their own country, so that the operational checks prescribed in Directive 88/599(3) can extend to include infringement of the rules committed in other countries?

Can the Commission give a list of those Member States which have given extraterritorial effect to their national legislation on driving time and hours of rest, and those which have not?

When regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85 are revised, can the Commission take legislative action to ensure that Member States give extraterritorial effect to them?

Is the Commission prepared to take initiatives so that the system of guarantees and towing away of vehicles in third countries is not applied to subjects of Member States which have given extraterritorial effect to their legislation?

If so, how? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Under Regulations 3820/85(4) and 3821/85(5) on social conditions and recording equipment in road transport, offences against common rules on driving times and rest periods are punishable in all Member States.

The Commission agrees that enforcement of the regulations could be improved if Member States provided for the prosecution of nationals for offences committed in another Member State. However, under the current Community legislation, only Member States are legally competent to make such a decision.

The Commission has information on most but not all of the Member States' arrangements concerning the extra-territorial effect of the above-mentioned national implementation measures, and intends to secure complete details in the near future. The available information indicates that Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland have taken the power to sanction, to a certain extent, their nationals for breaches committed abroad. Under current Community law, the Commission cannot compel Member States that do not adopt an extra-territorial jurisdiction over their nationals to do so. In such cases, once a road transport driver enters another Member State he is subject to the jurisdiction of that Member State.

In the context of a possible modification of the common rules, the idea of obliging all Member States to give extra-territorial effect to their legislation will be examined by the Commission. It is, however, obvious that prosecution both abroad and at home for the same offence should be avoided.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 325, 29.11.1988, p. 55.

(4) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(5) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1103/98

by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: Selection criteria for the site of the fourth European School at Berkendael in Brussels

The Belgian Government has opted to locate the fourth European School - the Uccle Annex - on a site next to the women's prison at Berkendael which it has decided to convert into a detention centre for sex offenders.

The proposed buildings are inadequate and the lack of the necessary facilities for school buses together with parents' cars will cause traffic chaos.

Will the Commission, therefore, say what immediate measures it will take:

1. to heed the general outcry from the European School parents, which also took the form of a demonstration outside the Borchette building on 27 January 1998, and to overturn the Berkendael plan, and

2. to address a recommendation to the governments of the Member States listing places in the vicinity of which it is ill-advised to situate schools, to include prisons and rehabilitation and detoxification centres which clearly endanger the mental development and physical integrity of pupils.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 1998)

The two European Schools in Brussels are overcrowded, and significant renovation work is needed.

A new school will shortly open in the capital to solve these problems, and the outline plans for the redevelopment of the old sites has already been approved.

The Belgian authorities have offered the Board of Governors of the European Schools (the intergovernmental body responsible for these educational institutions) the Royal Athenaeum of Berkendael as a temporary alternative, to facilitate the partial relocation of the Uccle school while work is in progress. This offer was recently declined by the Board of Governors' Representative, given the possibility of housing part of the Uccle school's pupils in the new school.

The Commission, which is a member of the Board of Governors, will keep a close eye on the development of this project and will ensure that the European Schools can continue to operate properly.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1432/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries



Official Journal C 386 , 11/12/1998 P. 0127



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (11 May 1998) Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries Of the total number of projects financed from the funds earmarked for cooperation allocated by DG VIII to West African countries, will the Commission say what percentage of the said funds has been assigned to projects to develop the fisheries sector?