ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0055/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Subject: Avoiding a contest for financial aid - priority for the business environment

The EU's regional policy is intended to increase the competitiveness of regions whose development is lagging behind and those with structural adjustment problems. There is, however, a danger that regional rivalry in an unhealthy race for business sites and associated financial aid will distort competition. Such distortions can be kept to a minimum if we give priority to fostering the business environment rather than assisting individual firms. In this way we would support a more sustainable regional development. A way to implement this strategy in concrete terms would be, for example, for each programme's total operations to include a 50 % commitment of ERDF funds, which are intended to support the business environment.

What is the Commission's view of these efforts to avoid harmful competition for business sites?

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

(3 March 1999)

European competition policy ensures that aid given to eligible regions complies with Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. Within this framework, a certain competition between different regions is welcome in order to increase the competitiveness of regions as well as the Community as a whole.

However, to avoid damaging or unfair competition between the regions for inward investment the Community's competition policy includes measures such as the guidelines on national regional aid(1) or multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects(2).

The Commission agrees with the Parliament on the need to give more importance to the improvement of the business environment rather than assisting enterprises themselves. In its working paper on "The Structural Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund - Draft guidance for programmes in the period 2000-2006"(3) adopted on 3 February 1999, the Commission urges the need to focus more on the qualitative aspects of the business environment, such as for example business support services, while the importance of capital grants should be reduced.

However, the extent to which the European regional development fund assists productive investment or business related infrastructure is the responsibility of the regions drafting and implementing the programmes. Indeed, this question is at the core of formulating a region specific strategy for regional development. The Commission does not therefore in general give any specific quotas for individual priorities such as business related infrastructure.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

(3) SEC(99) 103.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0945/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 April 1999)

Subject: Vasco da Gama Bridge, Lisbon: payment of transfers

The Vasco da Gama Bridge, co-financed by the Union, has long been completed and already open for nearly a year.

Given the passage of time, it would be logical to assume that the Commission had already transferred the full amounts required to pay its share of the costs.

Could the Commission say whether it has paid all of the instalments of funding entailed in its financial contribution to the works as a whole, including access road networks?

If it has not done so, what fundamental or administrative reasons and/or final assessments lie behind its failure to act?

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

(6 May 1999)

The balance of Community assistance is the only payment still to be made by the Commission for the new Tagus bridge project and its access roads, as defined in Decision C (94) 3905.

In addition to the supplementary information which the Commission has already asked the Portuguese authorities to provide as part of its analysis of the final report on the project, payment of the balance is also dependent on the Commission's checking compliance with the clauses in the Decision to grant aid, in particular those relating to the provisions of Decree-Laws Nos 9/93 and 280/94, referring respectively to the urban planning of the south bank and the creation of a special protection area for the Tagus estuary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in France does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/99

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Rural libraries in Central America to foster the culture of peace

The Community decision to equip 3 000 rural libraries in Central America will help to remedy the paradoxical situation in which teachers in the region are encouraging their pupils to read but have no books to give them.

The Community donation was not just intended to aid teaching and adult literacy programmes. On the contrary, the above-mentioned library project constituted a further step in the political reconstruction of a region that has been hit so severely by wars and conflicts.

Following the success of the Community initiative, does the Commission think that it should continue to support libraries in Central and South America to help to foster both the culture of peace and the expertise that can overcome the low literacy rates found in numerous isolated pockets in that part of the world?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his appreciation of its project to support rural libraries in Central America.

The Commission is convinced that such projects help to improve the education of those involved and thereby contribute, in the long run, to promoting peace and democracy; it is therefore quite willing to consider proposals for further programmes of this type in Central America.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/99

by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: World Trade Organization

Despite the Freedom to Farm act of 1996, which laid down that subsidies to US farmers would be progressively phased out, the US Government paid out over US$ 6 000 million in direct subsidies in 1998.

Does the Commission intend to open the arbitration procedure provided for by the World Trade Organization?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

Members of the World trade organisation (WTO) have undertaken to reduce domestic support in accordance with quantified commitments. However, subsidies complying with specific criteria laid down in the agreement on agriculture (the so-called "green" and "blue" box measures) are not subject to these reduction commitments. Information available does not indicate that the United States is granting aid in contradiction with the agreed criteria or beyond its commitments. Notwithstanding, the United States will have to notify its subsidies to the WTO. The Community will than carefully examine whether the American notification complies with the established rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/99

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Alleged irregularities in the BIC assignment procedure in Salerno

As is known, the instruments at the disposal of Commission DG XVI, particularly for the promotion and launching of Business and Innovation Centres (BICs), involve applications from qualified parties and thus allocation of the earmarked resources. In this case the BICs launched by DG XVI and adopted in various forms throughout Union territory with varying degrees of success are still being pursued as one of the most valid means of promoting and assisting small and medium-sized businesses.

Can the Commission answer the following:

- what incidents marked the procedures and allocation of at least two phases of appropriations for launching the BIC in Salerno (Campania)?

- did this entail a doubling of expenditure?

- what initiatives, if any, were taken by the competent DG to renew the appropriation?

- who were the proponents at the time of the decision and were other applications ever taken into consideration?

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

(31 March 1999)

There have been two separate projects to create a Business and Innovation Centre (BIC) in Salerno. The first project was proposed to the Commission in November 1988 by the Ageni/Terfin company. However, when the preparatory work had been completed as normal and the payments made in the proper manner, the centre could not be established because the main partner (Terfin) withdrew from the Ageni group. The second project was presented by "Bic Campania Sud" in October 1996. No problems have arisen so far with the allocation of funding or the conduct of preparatory work, both of which are progressing normally.

Funding has not been awarded twice to the same beneficiary or to the same project; two separate cases of funding are involved. The second was justified because the first project failed. The Commission did not take any initiative to renew the funding; it approved the second project, which was presented by the local promoters.

The bodies promoting the first project were the Ageni company, acting through Terfin, the Associazione Industriali di Salerno, the Salerno Chamber of Commerce, Consorzio ASI, the Fondazione A. Genovesi SDOA, the University of Salerno and Vila Sud Srl. The promoter of the second project is "Bic Campania Sud", whose main shareholders are the Province of Salerno, the Salerno Chamber of Commerce, Fondazione A. Genovesi SDOA, Consorzio ASI, three banks and about 25 small private enterprises.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/99

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

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it declared the tuna canning industry is the most important Community canning sector in terms of employment and the volume of trade, and that to encourage the huge growth prospects in this sector there is a need:

"(...) to ensure that compensation is granted to third countries for the purposes laid down in Community provisions, sustainable development (ACP), the fight against drugs (GSP-drugs, Andean Pact), and that countries which enjoy privileged access to the Community market do not operate in social dumping conditions."

Can the Commission say what measures have been adopted to comply with Parliament's request and thereby encourage the growth prospects in the Community tuna canning industry?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/99

by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission

(22 January 1999)

Subject: Assistance for Bavaria from EU funds 1994-98

Can the Commission provide information about the amounts paid to Bavaria from 1994-98 from EU support funds in the following areas:

1. During the period 1994-98 what amount was paid to Bavaria from the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF)?

2. In the same period, how much went to Bavaria in support funds for Objective 2 and Objective 5b regions?

3. From 1994 to 1998, how much was paid to Bavaria as assistance for research and development (R& D)?

4. In the same period, how much was paid from the following programmes:

(a) Socrates

(b) Leonardo

(c) Kaleidoscope

(d) Town twinning

(e) Raphael?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/99

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Cryptosporidium

Does the Commission have any research (or is there any in progress) on the infectivity of type 1 cryptosporidium as distinct from that of type 2?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission is funding, within the Biomed 2 programme, a project on cryptosporidiosis(1) which started on 1 May 1997 with a duration of 36 months.

Although cryptosporidium infection in people with intact immune function is asymptomatic or self-limited, infants and immunodeficient individuals are at severe risk from infection. Transmission takes place person-person or animal-person, often via contaminated water. At present, there are no effective diagnostic systems available to discriminate among parasite isolates of different origin. The project focuses on the development of effective genetic markers by the cloning of the cryptosporidium polymorphic genes and by the establishment of a cryptosporidium isolate bank. After one year, the project collaborators reported to the Commission the identification of two genetically distinct groups, genotype 1 (or H) exclusively associated with human infection, and genotype 2 (or C) associated with both human and animal infection. Human faecal samples from several outbreaks in United Kingdom were analysed and it was found that type 1 was responsible, almost exclusively, for the waterborne transmission whereas type 2 was confined to the animal infection (both natural and experimental). It was also found that most cryptosporidial infection in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients occurred in those who had been Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected by the sexual route.

In the fifth framework programme for research and technological development (1998-2002)(2), research on risk assessment and the development of new diagnostic tests for infectious diseases will be a high priority in the key action "Control of infectious diseases" of the thematic programme "Quality of life and management of living resources".

(1) Contract: BMH4-CT97-2557, "Molecular typing of Cryptosporidium parvum: monitoring of strain variation in AIDS patients and identification of transmission routes in parasite outbreaks".

(2) OJ C 137, 7.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0983/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Action to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade with the United States

The customs formalities imposed by the United States are particularly detailed and require a large amount of information, most of which would appear to be irrelevant for customs or statistical purposes. This is prejudicial to European exporters, especially those in the textile sector.

Does the United States plan to act to resolve this problem? If not, does the Commission intend to take any action in this area?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

The Commission can confirm that the Community textiles industry considers that clearance formalities by the United States customs present various problems including requiring detailed information particularly on product composition.

Despite these difficulties the United States remains the Community's largest export market with exports of [fmxeuro] 4 430 million in 1998 (12.6 % of the Community's total exports of textiles and clothing).

The Commission will use its on-going contacts with the United States' authorities to raise these issues with a view to seeking improvements failing which the Commission will consider whether it is opportune to make formal complaint to the World trade organisation (WTO) in respect of potential breaches of the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0509/99

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Telecom markets in Estonia

The Estonian Government and AS Eesti Telefon have concluded an exclusive concession agreement granting the latter full monopoly to supply basic telecommunications services in Estonia until 30 December 2000.

Having regard to the Europe Agreement concluded with Estonia, in particular Articles 63 and 65 and the Joint Declaration of the Parties:

1. Has Estonia been under an obligation to ensure free competition on its telecommunications market since 1 January 1998, and does the Commission commend Estonia's performance in this respect?

2. Since 1 January 1998, has Estonia been under an obligation not to enter into or keep in force any agreements whose purpose and effect is to restrict competition on the telecommunications market, and how does the Commission rate Estonia's performance in this respect?

3. Is Estonia under an obligation to ensure independent functioning of the regulatory body supervising AS Eesti Telefon, and does the Commission commend Estonia's performance in this respect?

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

(13 April 1999)

Article 65 of the Europe agreement (EA) establishing an association between the Communities and Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Estonia of the other part, provides for the association council to ensure that the principles of Article 90 of the EC Treaty in relation to public undertakings and undertakings to which special or exclusive rights have been granted are upheld as from 1 January 1998.

By virtue of joint declaration 6 annexed to the EA, the concession agreement between the Estonian government and the Estonian telephony company is compatible with the provisions of the EA (Article 65) on condition that leased lines are made available on request, within reasonable time periods, for corporate networks and closed user groups for their use, comprising voice telephony and data services as from 1 January 1998, and that the regulatory functions are entrusted to an independent body as from 1 January 1998.

The Estonian government has recently adopted the draft telecommunication law, which will introduce the regulatory framework in the sector and in particular will establish an independent regulatory body. Even though it appeared later than planned, this draft appears to be in compliance with Community legislation in this area. The Commission expects a prompt adoption of the law once the recently elected Estonian Parliament starts its activities.

There is no reason to believe that Estonia does not fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of the EA. It does not seem likely that the creation of a new regulatory body could be hastened by making use of Article 65 of the EA. Nevertheless, in the context of the negotiations towards Estonia's membership of the Community and the pre-accession strategy, the Commission will closely monitor progress by Estonia in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0385/99

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: The political situation in the Dominican Republic

Is the Commission aware of the problems that have recently occurred in the Dominican Republic, especially concerning the way in which the government is treating the opposition?

Has it already reacted to this situation?

If so, how?

If not, is the Commission prepared to find out about the situation in the Dominican Republic and to take any steps that may be necessary?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

The Commission is closely monitoring the situation in the Dominican Republic and is aware of the tension between the government and the opposition. While this forms part of a broader picture it is currently focused largely on the composition of the Junta Central Electoral.

In the course of a recent high-level Commission visit to the Dominican Republic officials met the president and the heads of the two legislative chambers, both members of the opposition,and urged them to cooperate in strengthening democracy and the rule of law, pointing out the responsibilities incumbent on all parts of the machinery of state.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0521/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Environmental impact report on the Atlantic motorway in Vigo (Galicia, Spain)

Whilst pointing out a number of significant shortcomings unearthed in the environmental impact assessment, the environmental impact statement on the aforementioned project declared it viable, provided that certain activities were undertaken to counteract the runoff and loose surface on the slope of Mount Madroa. The project's failure to comply with that condition led to large-scale landslides and flooding on the slope, and to a revised project providing for a sizeable increase in the surface area covered and the volume of land excavated. As a result, the project under way at present differs greatly from the one examined in the environmental impact assessment.

The changes made to the mountain slope have exerted a considerable impact on the environment - including a reduction in woodland, microclimatic changes, a visible deterioration in the landscape and an increasingly loose surface - and present a clear risk to the population.

1. Is the Commission aware of the situation described above?

2. Does it not take the view that Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is being infringed, and that the competent authorities ought to carry out a new environmental impact assessment, given the marked difference between the new features of the project and those initially contained therein?

3. During the public consultation stage, citizens were neither made aware of, nor able to give their point of view on, the activities which might affect them at a later stage. Does the Commission consider this a breach of their right to be provided with information of any kind on environmental matters, as laid down in Directive 90/313/EEC(2) on the freedom of access to information on the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1999)

1. The Commission was not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Members.

2. The Commission has opened a file on the matter raised by the Honourable Members and will look into any failure to comply with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The Spanish authorities have been asked to comment.

3. Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment stipulates that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest. Going purely by what the Honourable Members have described, the Commission is unable to establish whether the Spanish authorities have received an application for access to information to which they have failed to respond appropriately.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.