ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1153/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of Member States' action programmes on control of EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure

In 1994, confirmed undue payments from the EAGGF Guarantee Section totalled ECU 416.8 million, of which only ECU 79.1 million, or less than 20%, has been recovered. This figure shows that efforts must be stepped up. Moreover, the rate of utilization of EU financial resources available to Member States for carrying out controls during the 1991-94 period was low (only 41%).

Following on from last year's consideration of the Council proposal, will the Commission explain what measures have been taken to improve the fraud clear-up rate and recover undue payments?

Will it also explain what measures have been taken to ensure that Member States make greater use of the EU financial resources available for this purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

In its last anti-fraud work programmes, the Commission (COM(95) 23 final, COM(96) 17 final) emphasised the necessity to improve the level of recovery. In the field of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) guarantee section, several measures have recently been implemented to speed up recovery. In particular, the Commission asked the Member States to verify all cases of irregularities communicated before 1993 in which an amount was still to be recovered. As a result of this exercise, the recovery rate increased to 32%. For another 34%, legal proceedings are pending. In the other cases, the Commission will have to decide whether the failure to recover the amount in question is due to negligence of a Member State, in which case the amount should be charged to the Member State.

The Commission is fully aware of the sometimes low level of use of anti-fraud appropriations by certain Member States. As indicated by the Honourable Member, the Commission has made a proposal for a regulation on the implementation of Member States' action programmes on control of EAGGF-guarantee section expenditure. An agreement in principle was reached in the Council in March 1997. Regarding the question of the actions to be co-financed, the purpose of the new regulation is clearly to extend the use of anti-fraud appropriations (Article 1 allows any other means of reinforcing the effectiveness of controls), to achieve structured control programmes and to encourage strongly the Member States to define a coherent strategy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1521/97 by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: A common language for Europe

More and more countries are joining the European Union and more and more are applying to join. Given that specific language characteristics need to be safeguarded, including dialect forms, and given also that the process of European integration is forging ahead and that the adoption of a common language would help bring about a more cohesive Europe, does the Commission not believe that it should mount a campaign directed at the Member States to achieve this goal?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

The Honourable Member will be aware that it is a fundamental principle of the Community to respect the linguistic and cultural diversity of its Member States. Each of the official languages is of equal worth.

It is therefore Community policy to promote the diversity of the languages, both by fostering an improvement in language knowledge and by encouraging diversification in the languages taught in the Member States.

The Commission's white paper 'Teaching and learning: towards the learning society' ((COM(95) 590. )) emphasises the need for all citizens to know two Community languages besides their own, if they are to benefit fully from all the opportunities offered by the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Draft Regulation on the Cumulative Recovery System

A draft Regulation on the granting of import rights, entitled 'Cumulative Recovery System', in the rice sector, has apparently reached an advanced stage of discussion.

Will the Commission state:

1. what preference it is granting Community products?

2. whether this Regulation is compatible with WTO standards?

3. how it intends to monitor the application of this system which, in the view of operators, will considerably facilitate fraud, to the detriment of the Community market in rice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

During the negotiations under Article XXIV-6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) the Council undertook to set up a cumulative recovery system so that importers can receive compensation if they pay an excessively high import duty in relation to the quality of the rice they import.

The purpose of the system is to maintain the level of Community preference because the maximum import price established in the Uruguay round agreements will always be complied with.

There is provision for a system of checks which will cover at least 50% of the consignments imported under this system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/97 by Georges de Brémond d'Ars (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Submission of applications for funding under Article 8 of the EAGGF and Article 10 of the ERDF

Some firms of consultants have stated that they have received authorization from the Commission to act on behalf of 'local action groups' with a view to submitting applications for funding under Article 8 of the EAGGF and Article 10 of the ERDF, in particular in the context of the Leader II programme, and they are using this claim to advertise their services among those concerned.

Can the Commission say whether such authorization has been granted?

If so, can it also say what procedure must be followed in order to receive such authorization and what selection criteria are used, and can it say what proportion of the projects which finally received funding under the Leader II programme, in terms of numbers and amounts, was based on applications submitted by firms of consultants and what proportion was based on applications submitted directly by local action groups?

Answer given by Ms Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

In the context of neither the Leader II programme, nor the calls for proposals under Article 8 of the EAGGF Guidance Section regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7. 1993. )) and Article 10 of the ERDF regulation1 has the Commission at any time authorized firms of consultants to act on behalf of local action groups.

It should also be pointed out that, according to Commission notice to the Member States No 94/C 180/12, the prime objective of the Leader II programme is 'to stimulate innovative measures by those, whether public or private, engaged at local level in all sectors of rural activity' and that 'in all matters related to rural development, priority should be given to programmes for local action and investment.' Public financing of the Leader II programme, and Community financing in particular, therefore aims to support rural development at local level and not to finance consultancy services submitting applications for funding under other Community programmes.

Moreover, financing of pilot projects under Article 8 of the EAGGF Guidance Section regulation or Article 10 of the ERDF regulation has nothing to do with the Leader II programme. It should also be pointed out that financing under Articles 8 and 10 is authorized, in compliance with the rules on competition, on the basis of calls for proposals published in the Official Journal and that proposals are selected on the basis of objective and independent criteria. The idea is to give every person or organization the possibility to submit their applications and to select the best ones at Community level. Under no circumstances, therefore, would the Commission authorize bodies that would benefit from an unfair competitive advantage during the call for proposals procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Viability of the Alqueva project

In her reply of 27 February 1997 to my written question E-4057/96 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 51. )), Commissioner Wulf-Mathies now states "the survey (by the international consultants Montgomery Watson) concludes that the average flow of the River Guadiana is sufficient to ensure the viability of the Alqueva project¨. In addition, the Commissioner acknowledges that the management of water resources in the Guadiana basin should be carried out on a 'cooperative' basis between Portugal and Spain, recognizing 'the sovereignty of each country', with the aim of regulating by international agreement - similar to agreements already in existence - matters such as water quality, water flows, the transport of sediment, environmental aspects and water abstraction rights. I welcome this change for the better in the Commissioner's position compared to her statements to the Committee of the Regions which cast doubt on whether the water flow was sufficient to make the project viable.

This is information which, although it was known to the Portuguese authorities, as the reply makes clear at a number of points, I myself could only request from the Commission. Firstly because an MEP's mandate does not confer powers of political scrutiny over national authorities. Secondly because it was only Commissioner Wulf-Mathies who questioned the viability of the project.

In the light of this positive development in the Commissioner's position, I should like to ask when the Commission will draw the appropriate practical conclusions from the evidence that the project is viable as far as water flows are concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1997)

On the basis of the conclusions of the Montgomery Watson survey and the assurances obtained by the Commission from the Spanish authorities on the matter of water management for rivers flowing through both Member States, the Commission is now in a position to consider that the Alqueva project will have enough water resources to be viable.

Given the recent developments in the examination of the Alqueva dossier, the Commission, in close cooperation with the Portuguese authorities, will continue the work required for this project to be approved as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1040/97 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Licences for the import into EU countries from outside the EU of fresh and sawn timber containing serious pests such as the pinewood nematode

The EU is currently debating the initiative of certain Member States aimed at facilitating the import into the EU of fresh and sawn timber from non-EU countries including Canada. The import of heat-treated timber is currently permitted on the grounds that heat treatment kills the pinewood nematode, whereas the gas and chemical treatments proposed in the discussions are not sufficient to do this. In importing fresh and sawn timber it is absolutely essential to ensure that creatures such as the pinewood nematode, which has been scientifically proved to be a serious pest, do not enter the EU. This nematode does not exist in Europe, but other countries such as Canada and Japan are plagued by it.

The ideal temperature for the pinewood nematode to reproduce is above 20°, which is a normal temperature precisely in the countries of Central Europe. The nematode is not killed even by freezing temperatures as low as *40°.

Has nothing been learnt from the mad cow affair? I gather that Commission officials are even considering allowing the import for a trial period of non-heat-treated fresh and sawn timber from Canada, which has been proved to be an area affected by the pinewood nematode. If the nematode once enters Europe, it will stay here even after the trial period.

What measures does the Commission propose taking to prevent the import from outside the EU of fresh and sawn timber containing serious pests such as the pinewood nematode?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1997)

The Commission has long been aware of the problem of the pinewood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus), which is not found in the Community but listed in Council Directive 77/93/EEC ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) on protective measures against introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products, as amended. Since 1991 it has been financing joint research work with Canada to determine the heat treatment parameters for elimination of the nematode in timber before export to Europe. The requirements that have emerged are a heartwood temperature of 56°C for thirty minutes.

The Commission, with the aid of a group of Community scientific experts, has analysed the plant health risk posed to the Community by the pinewood nematode and its vectors (Monochamus sp.). This has allowed other possible recommendations to be worked out, including selection of sound trees in woodland, treatment by chemical impregnation under pressure and fumigation, but these have still to be studied scientifically in depth, particularly tree selection.

In response to the Honourable Member's remark on a possible trial period for imports of non-heat treated Canadian timber, no decision has yet been taken on the Canadian proposal, which is under study by the Standing Committee on Plant Health. Any proposal by the Commission would of course be scientifically based.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/97 by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Commission Directive of 16 February 1996 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children

Recital 11 of Commission Directive 96/5/EC of 16 February 1996 ((OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 17. )) on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children provides that the necessary microbiological criteria and maximum levels for contaminants should be laid down without delay. The Commission has not so far submitted a proposal in this connection.

1. Has the Commission already begun to draw up a proposal laying down the necessary microbiological criteria and maximum levels for contaminants?

2. If not, when will work begin to draw up such a proposal, taking into account the urgent need for maximum levels for contaminants to be established?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)

The Commission has begun work to draw up a draft Commission directive on maximum pesticide levels in processed cereal-based foods and baby foods intended for infants and young children. However, given that this is a complicated and sensitive matter which needs careful consideration, no timetable for the presentation of this draft can be given.

Given the urgency of the above matter, work on microbiological criteria has been deferred.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1384/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Sale of British goods from French market stalls

Is the Commission aware that it is virtually impossible for British citizens to sell British goods in French street markets because the relevant local authorities say that certain special criteria must be met.

What action will the Commission take to ensure that a single market is able to operate for citizens of all countries of the EU without the implementation of complicated local laws?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1997)

The Commission has not been informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers.

With respect to internal market rules, the French local authorities have the right to apply their relevant provisions concerning street markets to British citizens or British goods as long as there is no discrimination by reason of nationality which might impede free movement of persons or goods. Concerning the free movement of goods, it seems that the 'Keck et Mithouard' case law would in such a case be applicable (judgement of 24 November 1993, case C-275/91).

The Commission invites the Honourable Member to provide concrete examples of difficulties encountered by British citizens in selling British goods in French street markets in order that it may investigate a possible breach of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Assessment of the PHARE programme

The effectiveness of the management of the PHARE programme, which provides funds for the economic reform of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, has been called into question in a recent EP report which alleges that there has been no effective assessment which enables the practical results of Community aid to the countries concerned to be demonstrated.

What view does the Commission take of these criticisms?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1997)

In response to a 1995 Parliament resolution (ref A4-235/95 of 24 October 1995) which called for an interim evaluation of the Phare programme by way of preparation for the 1998 budget procedure, the Commission is preparing a report for submission to the Parliament no later than 30 June 1997. This is based primarily on about a hundred evaluation studies already carried out on various programmes and actions of the Phare programme.

The report will deal extensively with the question posed by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (4 March 1997)

Subject: Failure to implement legislation on combined transport

Combined transport, to which the EU has devoted so much effort, is the form of transport that promotes the optimum use of goods vehicles. According to a report in the authoritative Greek periodical, Trochoi kai T.I.R. a confused situation has been allowed to develop in Greece through a failure to implement the recent Legislative Decree 431/95 and through the Greek Ministry of Transport's tolerance of utility vehicles for national transport being used for combined transport with Community trailers.

The above Decree states that combined transport between Member States of the EU may be carried out by any natural or legal person who fulfills the conditions for pursuing road haulage laid down by Presidential Decrees 57/89 and 294/91 and Regulation 881/92 ((OJ L 95, 9.4.1992, p. 1. )) on the international carriage of goods by road. It is expressly stipulated that the trailer must be covered during towing by the Community authorization required for the towing vehicle.

Is the Commission aware of this situation and what representations has it made or will it make to the Greek authorities to implement these provisions forthwith and impose immediate administrative and penal sanctions on anyone in breach of them?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

Legislative decree 431/95 relates to the implementation of Greek national law and this matter falls within the responsibilities of the Greek authorities.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 ((OJ L 95, 9.4.1992. )), which is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States concerns international carriage of goods for journeys carried out within the territory of the Community. In this regulation, international transport is defined in terms of the movement of the motor vehicle. Consequently a semi-trailer which arrives unaccompanied in Greece and is then hauled by a tractor to a destination in Greece is to be regarded as national transport in Greece. It is subject to applicable Greek rules if the tractor is registered in Greece and to Community cabotage rules ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993; OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )) if the tractor is registered in another Member State. If however the semi-trailer is hauled by a tractor registered in another Member State at the time of its arrival in Greece, then it would be regarded as international transport under Regulation 881/92 and a Community authorization is needed for the tractor.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0568/97 by Ulf Holm (V) to the Council (25 February 1997)

Subject: A common financial policy

EMU will involve ECB coordination of Member States' monetary policies. Several economists believe that, if monetary union is to be fully operative, financial policies should also be coordinated.

Does the Council agree with them?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The Council wishes to direct the honoured member's attention to the fact that in the third stage of EMU as regards participating Member States, the European System of Central Banks will according to Article 105 of the Treaty and the Protocol on the ESCB define and implement the monetary policy of the Community. Concerning exchange rate policy, the Council may according to Article 109 of the Treaty conclude formal agreements on an exchange-rate system in relation to non-Community currencies consistent with the objective of price stability or in the absence of such a system formulate general orientations for exchange-rate policy. These general orientations shall be without prejudice to the primary objective of the ESCB to maintain price stability.

For economic policy in general, including budgetary policies, other rules apply. Article 102a says that Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community.

Article 3a(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community stipulates that the activities of the Member States and the Community shall include the adoption of an economic policy based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies.

Under the procedure provided for in Article 103 of the Treaty the Council determines the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community.

In order to ensure closer coordination of these policies and sustained convergence the Council monitors the development of economic performance in the Member States and the consistency of Member States' policies with the broad guidelines.

In this context, in stage three of EMU, the Council will examine the stability programmes of participating Member States, and the convergence programmes of the non-participating Member States. In stage three of EMU Member States remain responsible for their national budgetary policies, subject to the provisions of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact.