ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Guarantees in the Serbian Basic Law concerning the rights of minorities in Kosovo

The situation in the Serbian province of Kosovo, where the majority of the people are ethnic Albanians, is rapidly deteriorating. Hardly a day goes by without someone being killed or injured on both sides.

The gulf between Serbia's political leaders, who regard Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia, and the leaders of the Albanian population, who want to make Kosovo an independent republic, seems unbridgeable.

Like the other actors on the international scene, the Commission has several times stated that a solution to the problem must be sought within the borders of Serbia or Yugoslavia, even if it means conferring a great measure of autonomy on the Albanians. The Serbian authorities state that the Serbian Basic Law grants all minorities, including the Albanians, a measure of autonomy which meets all internationally accepted standards on the position of minorities.

Can the Commission state to what extent the guarantees offered by the Serbian Basic Law do in fact meet international standards?

If these guarantees do not meet international standards, can the Commission state which points of the Serbian Basic Law need to be adapted?

If they do, can the Commission state to what extent the basic law is being implemented by the Serbian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

The concept of autonomy under the 1990 constitution of the Republic of Serbia is very limited, in particular as all economic decisions are centralised. Kosovo Albanians have lost all of the legislative and executive authority which they had gained under the 1974 federal construction.

Human and minority rights in Kosovo, as elsewhere in Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, are in theory guaranteed to a high level by the 1990 constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the 1992 constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Furthermore, Article 16 of the 1992 constitution obliges the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to comply with the various international treaties and conventions to which it is party (including most of the relevant international covenants on human rights).

These rights are not, however, implemented by the Serbian authorities. One example would be the law on special property transactions, which prevents Kosovo Albanians from purchasing real estate from Serbian owners - in contradiction with the right to inviolable property and the decrees on the equality of social and private property.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0294/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Regulation 3254/91 on imports of fur from leghold traps

Can the Commission confirm that a prohibition on the import of furst has been placed on countries not complying with the terms of Regulation 3254/91 ((OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. )) as from 1 December 1997, and can it supply a list of countries which export furs to the EU and would be affected by this prohibition?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

The Commission can confirm that Council Decision 97/602/EC of 22 July 1997 ((OJ L 242, 4.9.1997. )) concerning the list of countries authorised to export pelts and derived products pursuant to the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 was published in the Official Journal.

Consequently, restrictions on the importation of such goods entered into force on 1 December 1997 in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 35/97 of 10 January 1997 laying down provisions on the certification of pelts and goods covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 ((OJ L 8, 11.1.1997. )).

The information currently available to the Commission suggests Argentina to be the non-member country worst hit by the embargo. In 1995, Argentina exported ECU 51 000 worth of beaver skins to the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0328/98 by Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission (10 February 1998)

Subject: Olive oil storage contracts for the 1997/98 marketing year

Olive oil storage contracts for the 1997/98 marketing year are governed by the provisions laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/98 ((OJ L 9, 15.1.1998, p. 25. )) of 19 January 1998.

The aid provided for under that Regulation is granted only to oils complying with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 ((OJ L 248, 5.9.1991, p. 1. )) of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis.

The betasisterol content of some Italian virgin oils is often lower than the legal limit (93%) laid down in that Regulation.

Would the Commission not agree that the above system penalizes oils which, for wholly natural reasons linked to environmental conditions (such as climate or long storage periods), have a lower betasisterol content?

How does it intend to put an end to this injustice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler behalf of the Commission (24 February 1998)

As part of the measures to ensure and safeguard the quality of olive oil, the Commission enacted Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 referred to by the Honourable Member, whose provisions on the characteristics of olive oils are updated regularly to take account of recent developments in olive oil chemistry. Under the Regulation olive oils may be classified in different categories, and its provisions are mandatory without exception both as regards marketing and for eligibility for the various measures provided for by the market organisation for olive oil, for example, consumption aid, export refunds, intervention, and storage contracts.

Compliance with stringent quality criteria is an essential element in the effective control of fraud, for example the mixing of olive oil with seed oils. For this reason, in the past the Commission has always rejected requests for an exception, like the one presented relating to the arrangements for storage contracts, for a betasitosterol level below that required under the rules.

The request for an exception to which the Honourable Member refers, even though justified by special natural conditions, would, if it were accepted, present a major risk of fraud across the whole of the Community and a gradual deterioration in the quality of the oils available on the market. Indeed, one of the arguments put forward by the Honourable Member in support of such an exception, namely, the storage of olives for prolonged periods, is one of the main reasons preventing the production of high-quality oils.

In order to limit the negative effectst of failure to comply with certain physical and chemical parameters according to individual circumstances, the Commission, in the context of the updating of the methods provided for under the above Regulation, is examining the technical feasibility of replacing certain methods currently being applied by other parameters which are less subject to specific geographical and climatic variations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Dissolution of the Greek Productivity Centre (Elkepa)

The Greek Productivity Centre is a body which has made a continuous and active contribution to the Greek economy over the last 44 years and plays a significant role in the Association of European Productivity Centres of which it holds the vice-presidency. Today the Elkepa is responsible, inter alia, for implementing programmes funded by the European Union in the following sectors: training (the Community initiatives NOW, Horizon, Youthstart, etc.,), the modernization of the Public Administration in the field of the national entrepreneurial programme, Kleisthenis, inter-state cooperation programmes, such as PHARE and RETEX and bilateral inter-state aid programmes.

Given that the Greek Council of Ministers has decided to abolish the Elkepa and to transfer its activities to another body, there is some concern about the future of the programmes it is implementing.

Will the Commission say:

1. Whether problems are likely to occur as regards the management of the programmes it is implementing? Of so, does it intend to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the programmes which the Elkepa is co-funding and managing?

2. How does the Commission view the overall performance of the Elpeka in implementing European Programmes?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

Elkepa is an institution which has been financed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 815/84 on exceptional financial support in favour of Greece in the social field ((OJ L 88, 31.3.1984. )). Elkepa played an important role in the realisation of the programmes co-financed by the European social fund (ESF).

Although the Commission has not been officially informed of this matter by the Greek authorities, it seems, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, that the Greek government has decided to abolish this institution. Any replacement or transfer of activities to another institution remains, of course, within the competence of the Greek authorities and should take place according to national legislation. However, providing vocational training should remain the purpose of Elkepa infrastructures financed by this Regulation.

It will only be possible to have a clear assessment of the activities of Elkepa after completion of the evaluation procedures which are currently under way for all ESF programmes in Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0515/98 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Right of information under the group exemption regulation

There is still room for improvement in the legal position of the recipients of EU aid and that of interested third parties. At present the recipient of aid has no way of requiring notification by the awarding agency. He therefore remains exposed to the danger of having to repay the aid. Nor, as a rule, can third parties affected by aid that distorts competition obtain information on legal acts of allocation directly in the Member States: they are forced to resort to the lengthy process of putting questions to the Commission.

The proposal for a group exemption regulation in the case of horizontal state aid (COM(97)0396) now gratifyingly provides for a right on information for recipients of aid and interested third parties. The proposal will both greatly reduce the administrative effort involved in the aid procedure and ensure a transparent system of legal protection.

According to reports, the appropriate Council working party has departed from the proposed right of information. This means that legal protection for the sectors of the economy concerned will not only not remain at the same level but will in effect deteriorate.

How does the Council now view the current state of the debate on this subject? In the Council's opinion, can such an approach really satisfy the legal protection requirements in a European domestic market?

Answer (18 May 1998)

The Honourable Member is informed that the preparatory discussions concerning the proposal for a Regulation on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal state aid are continuing in the Council's subordinate bodies. Pending the Opinion of the European Parliament, the Council has not yet determined its final position.

Once it has received that Opinion, the Council will complete its discussions as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: State aids

Can the Commission produce a league table showing by Member State comparative figures for state aided-areas and designated areas under the ERDF, both by numbers of areas and by population coverage, showing the degree of overlap between the two for the period 1994-99?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

The tables below reflect, in terms of population coverage, the extent of consistency between state aided-areas and areas eligible for structural fund assistance under objective 1, 2, 5b and 6 for the programming period 1994 - 1999. An indication of the number of areas concerned is not available nor meaningful (the size of the areas is frequently not comparable).

Table 1: Consistency between the structural funds areas and the state aid areas at Community level (% of Community population).

>TABLE>

Table 2: Regions eligible for structural funds assistance by Member State (% of the Member State population)

>TABLE>

Table 3: Regions eligible for national regional state aid by Member State (% of the Member State population)

>TABLE>

Table 4: Regions eligible for structural funds assistance but not eligible for national regional state aid by Member State (% of the Member State population)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/98 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Kurdish Community in Diyarbakir

Is the Commission aware of the allegation that the Kurdish community in Diyarbakir is being poisoned by sewage being pumped into its water supply? It is alleged that what used to be a fertile valley is dying and that many children are becoming ill. If true, is this acceptable behaviour from a country seeking to join the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)

The Commission is well aware of the low level of socio-economic development in the south-east of Turkey, exemplified, among other things, by the poor state of sewerage systems in several parts of that region. Leaks from the sewerage systems affect the health of the most vulnerable sections of the population, including children. The Turkish authorities are aware of this problem. It was on the agenda of the meeting of the Turkish National Security Council of 26 February 1998.

Since 1997, under the MEDA programme, the Commission has chosen to focus in particular on basic infrastructure and projects for improving socio-economic development in south-east Turkey. Last year it approved a drinking water project for Sanliurfa worth more than ECU 21 million. It has also allocated financing (almost ECU 23 million) in the form of interest-rate subsidies on loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) to improve the sewerage systems in Adana and Izmit.

As regards the city of Diyarbakir, the Commission has programmed interest rate subsidies for 1998 on an EIB loan for the Diyarbakir Water and Sewerage Administration to build a sewage treatment plant and a sewerage system.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0789/98 by Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: European public holiday on 9 May

The Commission has made clear inter alia through its Citizens First Initiative, the need for greater efforts to encourage European citizens to identify themselves with the European Union. The introduction of the single currency will of course be an important step in this direction. However, identification with the European Union could also be achieved very well by means of a common public holiday. This would create a further unifying symbol for all European citizens in addition to the European flag and the European anthem.

The date 9 May suggests itself (one day after the anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe, and the day on which Robert Schuman made his declaration in 1950 which led to the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community).

1. Has the Council yet drafted any proposals to this effect?

2. What is its position on the proposal to introduce the European public holiday by holding joint events in the Member States on 9 May 2000?

Answer (28 May 1998)

1. Under the Treaties it is for the Commission to make proposals to the Council, in accordance with the procedures laid down therein.

2. At this stage the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission in the area referred to by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that cultural events organized to mark Europe Day on 9 May are eligible for financial support under the Kaleidoscope programme ((Decision 719/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme to support artistic and cultural activities having a European dimension (OJ L 99, 20.4.1996) )) if they are organized jointly by persons active in the cultural field from at least three Member States;

3. In addition, on 20 November 1995, in view of the symbolic importance of the year 2000, the Ministers of the Member States meeting within the Council agreed that the following nine cities should be designated European Cities of Culture for that year: Avignon (France), Bergen (Norway), Bologna (Italy), Brussels (Belgium), Krakow (Poland), Helsinki (Finland), Prague (Czech Republic), Reykjavik (Iceland) and Santiago de Compostela (Spain).

These cities have been invited to coordinate their programmes and to define a common theme for the event: they will thus be able to participate jointly in the organization of a European cultural area for the year 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0114/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Urban policy

What plans has the Commission made to date for the Urban Forum planned for November 1998? Is there a date, venue and participation list agreed yet and will the European Parliament be invited to participate?

Answer given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

The Commission intends to organise the Urban forum in Vienna on 26-27 November 1998 with the support of the city of Vienna. The participation list will be decided in the near future. The Commission hopes that the Parliament will be a major participant.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/98 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Council (17 February 1998)

Subject: The Tudjman regime's tactics in Croatia

According to a report in the International Herald Tribune, the Tudjman regime in Croatia is prosecting the Croatian Helsinki Committee and the independent newspaper Feral Tribune, and it is seeking to impose controls on and abolish Croatian and foreign institutions which do not meet with its approval, subsidiaries of foreign undertakings, humanitarian and other non-governmental organizations which are struggling for the independence of the mass media, democracy and human rights in Croatia.

The reason given by the Tudjman regime for this prosecution is that all the organisations are introducing a dangerous new ideology into Croatia.

Will the Council say:

1. Is it aware of these tactics by the Tudjman regime?

2. Does it intend to finance and to support by every means the institutions in Croatia which are being prosecuted?

3. Does it intend to call on the Croatian President to cease prosecuting bodies which are supporting the independence of the mass media, human rights and democracy in Croatia?

Answer (8 June 1998)

The Council is closely following events in Croatia and is concerned about the fact that democratic rules are still not being observed in many areas, including freedom of the media.

The Union is already providing assistance to promote democracy and the development of independent media, including the 'Feral Tribune' newspaper.

The Union's relations with Croatia are governed by the 'regional approach' adopted in February 1996 and by the general conditions set out in the Council's conclusions of 29 April 1997. These conditions include respect for democratic principles and the rule of law. The Council will continue to take every opportunity to express its concern that Croatia should act in accordance with recognized international standards. At the meeting which it held in London in March 1998 the Ministerial Troika of the European Union explained in detail to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Granic, what the Union expects of Croatia, in particular with regard to the media. In its conclusions of 27 April 1998 the General Affairs Council also expressed the concern felt by the European Union at the situation of the media in Croatia.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0313/98 by Luis Campoy Zueco (PPE) to the Commission (10 February 1998)

Subject: URBAN programme

Will the Commission give details of the Spanish projects selected for the URBAN programme in 1997 and say whether any of them concern the region of Navarra?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1998)

As part of the extension of the URBAN initiative, the Spanish national authorities have presented the draft URBAN II operational programme for 1997-99 to the Commission for approval. It covers Córdoba, Avilés-Corvera, Santander, Albacete, León, Castellón, Pontevedra, Telde, Murcia, Zaragoza, Santa Coloma de Grammenet and Palma de Mallorca.

None of these projects concerns the region of Navarra.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Disability benefits in EU Member States

Can the Commission please indicate, on a country-by-country basis, the amount of money spent by each Member State on disability benefits as a proportion of total government spending?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0185/98 and E-0186/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0737/98 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: EU trade mark directive

The EU's trade mark directive creates special legal protection for the producers of branded articles, permitting them to keep the prices of their products artificially high. This rule seems very questionable in commercial law, since it places the protection of branded article producers above international conventions and agreements. This restricts the free movement of goods and acts against the interests of the consumer, who must ultimately pay the inflated price. In view of the above:

1. In the Commission's view, what are the consequences for competition and consumer policy of the restriction of free movement of goods as a result of the transposition of the EU trade mark directive in 1995, and how does it justify the de facto dominance of the interests of branded goods producers over those of free world trade and the consumer?

2. What information does the Commission possess about the extent to which the EU trade mark directive prevents the import of branded products at lower prices, and what effects has the directive had since its entry into force on the level of sales prices for branded articles on international markets?

3. What information does the Commission possess about the practical application of the trade mark directive in the Member States of the European Union, and can it confirm that a court in Belgium, for example, has condemned as an abuse of the directive its application for the purpose of preventing parallel imports?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.