ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/98

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Commission assessment of the implementation of the Urban programme in Cadiz (Spain)

Given the concerns expressed by various political, social and community bodies in Cadiz (Spain) and the importance to the city of the Urban programme, launched some time ago with the involvement of the Commission, will the Commission provide details of the current situation as regards the Urban programme in Cadiz?

In more specific terms, will it say what stage has been reached in the implementation of the various projects envisaged under the said programme, how much money has been invested thus far, and how much remains pending? What proposals have been approved and rejected?

Likewise, what is the Commission's assessment of the implementation of the Urban programme in Cadiz? Which of the objectives set when the programme was drawn up and approved have been met, and which not?

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

(3 February 1999)

The URBAN programme in Cadiz comes under the "URBAN España" programme for the period 1994-1999, which was approved by the Commission on 19 July 1995 and covers 17 Spanish cities.

According to information from the Spanish authorities, by 30 June 1998 around EUR 6,39 million had been paid out of total planned investment of EUR 14,49 million to implement the Urban programme in Cadiz, giving a rate of implementation (payments made and the ratio of obligations recognised to commitments entered into) of 44 %. In terms of total investment scheduled for the period 1995-98 (EUR 10,02 million), the rate of implementation is 63,7 %.

As for the implementation of the various measures under the programme for the period 1995-98, the situation is as follows:

>TABLE>

The measures implemented under this programme are consistent with the Commission notice to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes to be established within the framework of the Community initiative URBAN(1).

The evaluation of the extent to which the objectives of the operational programme have been achieved will begin during the first quarter of 1999.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3695/98

by Patrick Cox (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Booklet detailing the rules of the road in the various Member States

Given the ever-increasing number of road accidents and deaths, and in view of the Commission's commitment to a programme on road safety, will the Commission consider producing a booklet in all languages setting out the rules of the road applicable in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that most of the traffic rules applicable in Europe have been harmonised in the framework of the Geneva and Vienna conventions under the auspices of the United Nations economic commission for Europe.

However, there are still differences that can be quite important for people travelling by road throughout Europe. The Commission consequently published a leaflet jointly with the "Alliance internationale de tourisme" (AIT) in 1991 indicating the most important differences in traffic rules and signs. The leaflet, produced in English, French and German, has been widely distributed through the national association members of AIT. The advice in that leaflet is still accurate.

An assessment will be made of the costs and potential effectiveness of publishing the sort of document which the Honourable Member suggests and these could be evaluated in relation to other publicity campaigns.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3111/98

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Simplification of procedures for applying to the Commission for funds

The excessively lengthy time taken to process an application for EU funding for the Interlit 4 International Literature Days in Erlangen has highlighted once again the complex and cumbersome procedures followed by the Commission. Ever since 1994, the applicants had carefully and systematically gone the rounds of all the relevant bodies to obtain support for their application, which required a substantial outlay of time and resources.

It was only by virtue of very thrifty management that it was possible to hold the International Literature Days in Autumn 1997 despite the lack of EU support. Meanwhile, the Interlit application was rejected by the Commission, unofficially and by word of mouth. The organisers have still not received an official written rejection of their application from the Commission and a clear explanation of its decision.

1. On what grounds was the application for funding turned down, despite the favourable assessment it had previously received?

2. Why did the applicants not receive a formal rejection?

3. What means does the Commission intend to adopt to simplify the application procedure and to make the processing of applications more transparent and speedy?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Under Decision No 2085/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 establishing a programme of support, including translation, in the field of books and reading (Ariane)(1), the selection procedure operates in two stages.

Firstly, at the preselection stage, the Commission seeks to ensure that the files presented meet the formal criteria of eligibility for the programme as set out in the invitation to tender published in the Official Journal.

Secondly, Article 5 of the Decision establishing the Ariane programme requires the Commission to submit to the Committee the selection rules and criteria together with details of financial support granted to the projects selected. The Committee met on 3 October 1997. In order to select projects, the Commission will be assisted by a group of independent experts in the cultural field, who will express their opinion on the artistic and cultural merit of the applications.

1. The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member that, although the project in question passed the formal preselection stage, it was not accepted in the final selection.

2. Project leaders were officially informed of the results of the 1997 Ariane programme at the beginning of 1998. Meanwhile, following the meeting of the Programme Committee, the Commission, at the request of the parties concerned, informed them orally that their projects had not been selected.

3. The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that it is duty-bound to apply the selection rules laid down in Decision No 2085/97/EC(2). It applies these rules in all rigour and transparency.

(1) OJ L 291, 24.10.1997.

(2) OJ C 136, 1.5.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/98

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Maintaining biodiversity and agriculture in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe

There is a diversity of fauna and flora in most of the Eastern and Central European countries applying for membership which differs in several respects from that in the Member States of the Union. There are fears that vigorous rationalisation of agriculture in the applicant countries might threaten that biodiversity with a view to their future participation in the common agricultural policy.

What are the Commission's views on the need to preserve biodiversity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in relation to their future participation in the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

The Commission is aware of the biological diversity situation in the applicant countries and the risks issuing from the rationalisation and restructuring of their agriculture with a view to their future participation in the common agricultural policy. The Commission believes it is important to promote the understanding of sustainable and environmentally friendly production methods and the protection of biological diversity, and is discussing with these countries with a view to transferring Community experience to them in these fields. Assistance has also been given through PHARE projects and bilateral projects funded by Member States to agri-environmental measures and preservation.

From the year 2000 the agricultural pre-accession instrument, Sapard, will be available to help the applicant countries to prepare for the implementation of the agricultural acquis, including agri-environmental policies and the promotion of sustainable agriculture and rural development. In this context funding will be available to assist the applicant countries in implementing measures to develop agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment, including biodiversity, and to maintain the countryside.

Furthermore, during the year 2000 the Commission will present an action plan on agriculture and biodiversity as announced in the communication to the Council and to the Parliament on a Community biodiversity strategy(1). This action plan will be a practical tool to achieve the integration of biodiversity into the common agricultural policy and will include a specific focus on enlargement issues.

(1) COM(98) 42 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3955/98

by James Nicholson (I-EDN) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Osteoporosis

What measures has the Commission taken to date for the implementation of the recommendations set out in the report on Osteoporosis in the European Community - Action for Prevention, published on 10 June 1998?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3736/98 and E-3955/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The Commission attaches great importance to the growing public health issue of osteoporosis.

The Community has been able to support the drawing up of a report on osteoporosis by Decision 645/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 March 1996(1) within the context of the health promotion programme, and in June 1998, a conference organised by the Parliament in Brussels was held to mark the publishing of this report. The report covers recommendations for professionals, decision makers and the public. It also helps to determine the best actions to be taken at Community level.

About a million copies of a summary of this report have been published so far and disseminated in all Member States. The full report will soon be available in all languages of the Community and distributed to all members of the Parliament. Proposals for Council recommendations on osteoporosis will follow.

The public health programme on health monitoring set up by Decision 1400/97/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997(2) aims to provide the Community and the Member States with reliable and comparable data on the trends of the health status and risk factors. Osteoporosis as such is not specifically mentioned in the programme but all issues related to osteoporosis are included in the list of areas in which health indicators will be established, such as morbidity functioning and quality of life, diet, physical activity.

Finally the 5th framework research programme foresees the possibility of addressing osteoporosis in the chapter "An ageing population" in which osteoporosis is mentioned as one of the age-related diseases which must be tackled.

(1) OJ L 95, 16.4.1996.

(2) OJ L 193, 22.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/98

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

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Demarcation of the outer limit of the Argentinian EEZ

In its answer of 22 April 1998 to Written Question E-0496/98(1) on the matter in question, the Commission stated its agreement with the view that situations such as those which had led to the seizure of the vessel Arpón "cause difficulties in interpretation and generate a degree of instability for the ships operating in this region".

The Commission added that it "further considers that the coastal state has a clear duty under the terms of Articles 56(2) and 75 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to provide all the details necessary to define an EEZ and that it is answerable under international law if it fails to do so". Consequently, "in order to be able to resolve this situation, the Argentinian authorities are willing to hold a technical meeting with Spain in which the Commission is also willing to participate. If the legal uncertainty continues to persist afterwards, a more formal step may be envisaged".

In view of the lack of headway made since then towards clarifying the Argentinian EEZ:

1. Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take in order to resolve these problems, which are creating a climate of uncertainty and instability for the Community vessels operating in the zone?

2. What measures does it intend to adopt to ensure that the Republic of Argentina complies with the obligations incumbent upon it under Articles 56(2) and 75 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and how does it intend to make Argentina accountable should compliance not be forthcoming?

3. Will it specify what "more formal" step it envisages taking if the legal uncertainty persists, as is indeed the case?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Since the arrest of the "Arpon" on 13 May 1997, there have been no further incidents involving Community vessels. Consequently, the aspect of legal insecurity would seem to be no longer an issue and no further action is required. The Commission has not participated in any bilateral discussions between Spain and Argentina on this matter.

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 41.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3732/98

by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Council Directive of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

Article 17 of the Directive 91/477/EEC(1) states that:

"Within five years from the date of transposition of this Directive into national law, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the situation resulting from the application of the Directive, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals.'"

In view of the widely differing ways in which Member States apply the Directive and the problems encountered by hunters and competition shooters:

- when will the Commission produce the report referred to in Article 17, and

- when will it give the names of Member States who are failing to apply the Directive correctly?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The Commission confirms its intention to report to Parliament and Council in 1999 on the situation resulting from the application of Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, accompanied if appropriate by proposals.

This report will contain information on the implementation by Member States. The Honourable Member may already find such information in the Commission's fifteenth annual report on the application of Community law -1997(2).

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

(2) OJ C 250, 10.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/98

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Commission decision to defer approval for a section of the proposed Kildare bypass, which may affect the Pollardstown Fen, Ireland

What measures will the Commission now take, having deferred approval for a section of the proposed Kildare bypass, to ensure that the Pollardstown Fen is protected and that the scheme is redesigned? The Fen, a designated Special Area of Conservation under EU legislation, is fed by the Curragh aquifer which also provides water for the Grand Canal and Guinness's brewery, Ireland. It is the largest and most important gravel aquifer in Ireland. The integrity of the Pollardstown Fen is threatened by the proposed Kildare bypass motorway, as part of the bypass would be installed in a cutting - three kilometres long and up to six metres deep - through the Curragh aquifer.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The Honourable Member's question discloses an inaccuracy in as much as it assumes that the Commission has deferred approval for a section of the proposed Kildare bypass. The correct position is that, following complaints received in 1998 concerning the possible effects of the bypass on Pollardstown Fen, the Commission contacted the Irish authorities, who confirmed that, before the conclusion of the main contract for the bypass, the results of further investigation into the effects of the projects will be presented. These results are expected in autumn 1998.

The Commission will carefully examine these results to see what implications they may have for the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Mutual recognition of certificates providing evidence of formal training in medicine

Does a Member State have the right to refuse to recognise a diploma providing evidence of formal training in medicine - which a person resident in the European Union has obtained in another Member State and which provides evidence, in a certificate complying with Directive 93/16/EEC(1), that the person has undergone the requisite practical training (with reference to Article 3 of the said Directive) and that he/she has the right to practise medicine - purely and simply because he/she undertook part of his/her training in a third country - i.e. outside the European Union?

May a Member State also lay down other conditions relating to this issue before an EU national (or, for that matter, a person resident in the Member State) is authorised to practise?

Does the relevant Community law apply only to EU nationals or also to persons resident in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Article 1 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications(2) does indeed expressly state that it only applies to Community nationals.

Whilst the professional qualifications of a doctor who has received his/her training in the Community, but is not a national of one of the Member States, may be recognised by one Member State, there is no obligation upon the others to do so.

In this context, it should be noted that, even in the case of a Community national, the training should comply with the above-mentioned Directive, and if part of the training has been received outside the Community, the major part should have been acquired within the Community. This was explained by the Commission in its answer to Written Question E-936/90 by Mrs Larive(3), and the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to this.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(3) OJ C 79, 25.3.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3980/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Greek National Action Plan

Has the Greek Government made any specific commitments - and what are they - to take appropriate measures in 1999 to adopt a preventive approach to unemployment, to define precise objectives for employment policy and statistical indicators for employment, three points which constitute the main shortcomings of the Greek Action Plan for 1998?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 1999)

The 1998 Greek national action plan (NAP) for employment reflects a willingness of the Greek government to address key employment problems. An effort has been made to move towards a more preventive and activating labour market approach.

There is a general undertaking of the Greek government to comply with the prevention of youth and adult long-term unemployment guidelines and a number of measures have been presented. However, in the absence of an appropriate system that would identify, report and monitor the flows into and out of unemployment, most of the measures tend still to focus mainly on the stocks of the unemployed.

A particular effort has been made for young people and the programme "Young into active life" targets young beneficiaries before they reach six months in unemployment. Up to 200 000 people are expected to be covered by the year 2000.

The 1998 Greek NAP aims to give priority to unemployed adults, in the first year of unemployment, and a target of 60 000 people has been set for the year 2000.

According to the NAP, Greece will reach the European activation target (at least 20 % of unemployed benefiting from active measures) progressively by the year 2000. In discussions with the Commission, the Greek government agreed to develop in the 1999 NAP a more comprehensive employment strategy and to improve the preventive and activation approach in its labour market policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/98

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: WTO negotiations and animal welfare standards

Animal welfare standards vary throughout the European Union, with producers in some Member States, in particular, the United Kingdom, facing higher costs because they must comply with more stringent standards. With the next round of WTO negotiations due to start in 1999, how does the Commission intend to protect these EU producers who have to produce to higher animal welfare standards?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Community rules on the protection of animals on farms lay down minimum standards which must be observed by all Member States. They also allow Member States to introduce or maintain stricter standards for the protection of animals than would be achieved by the Community rules, but any such national provisions must be applied in accordance with the general rules of the EC Treaty and must be notified to the Commission.

Bearing in mind that producers may obtain a premium for using more welfare friendly systems, it is not clear that higher welfare standards necessarily impose an economic disadvantage on those using them.

The World trade organisation (WTO) rules apply to trade between the Community as a whole and other WTO members. They do not apply to trade between Member States. The possibility of amending WTO rules to take account of welfare concerns will be addressed in the context of the determination of the Community negotiating objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.