ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations for Lithuania

The European Union aids the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through its PHARE programme. A great deal of aid has presumably been provided from this programme for the development of the countries which have applied for membership of the EU. Can the Commission provide details of the utilization of appropriations granted under PHARE in 1997 for Lithuania?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1997)

The 1997 Phare-funded country operational programme (COP) of a total amount of 43.2 MECU includes the following components:

- European integration (11 MECU) support for institutional, legislative and regulatory development for Lithuania's integration into the Community. Assistance in this area will include activities, linked to institution-building and structural identification, by the inter-ministerial working groups;

- infrastructure (14 MECU) direct investment into some transport, telecommunication, energy and environment projects;

- economic development (12.85 MECU) agriculture, enterprise development and export promotion, privatization, and financial sector reform;

- health and human resources development (4.5 MECU) in particular health management reform as well as education and training;

- management (0.85 MECU).

In addition to the 1997 national programme, 2.8 MECU has been committed for Tempus and 4.3 MECU for cross-border cooperation.

The financing memorandum for the 1997 programme was signed in November 1997 and the programme will be implemented during 1998 and 1999. It is therefore to early to assess the impact of the 1997 programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4206/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Display of the European flag emblem on aircraft belonging to Member State airlines

In its answer to Written Question 2629/90 ((OJ C 136, 27.5.1991, p. 11. )) the Commission said that it was looking into the possibility of complying with the suggestion that the European emblem (of uniform size and standard characteristics) should be clearly displayed on aircraft belonging to the airlines of the EU Member States.

Several years have passed since that answer was given and the display of the European emblem in a prominent position on aircraft has still not become general practice, although a number of airlines are using it.

Although the Commission promised to contact the relevant authorities in the Member States about the matter, can it say why these moves have not produced more positive results with a view to it becoming general practice for the airlines of the EU Member States to be identified with the European emblem all over the world?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-583/95 ((OJ C 196, 31.7.1995. )).

That answer is still valid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3209/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Take-up rate of appropriations under the 'Delors II Package'

A succession of reports in the Greek press have pointed out that projects which are planned or being carried out under the 'Delors II Package' are in danger of not being completed because of the low take-up rate of appropriations by Greece for those projects.

Greece lies at then periphery of the Union and its infrastructure needs the support of these funds, even more urgently now that the country is to host the 2004 Olympic Games.

Will the Commission say:

- what appropriations were originally allocated to Greece by sector (e.g. education, health, infrastructure etc.) in absolute figures,

- whether they were readjusted, and

- what the exact amounts are per sector that have been taken up hitherto?

Will the Commission also say whether it will use any money left over in 1999 towards the cost of ongoing or completed projects that have overshot their budget?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1997)

As part of the interim assessment of the 1994-99 Community support framework (CSF) for Greece, the Commission and the Greek authorities are evaluating the progress made in achieving the initial objectives of the CSF. It is already clear that some of the major projects will not be completed by the end of the current programming period, particularly the Athens-Thessaloniki railway line and the Rio-Antirrio bridge. However, the Commission is insisting that as many projects as possible be completed within the time limits laid down.

The initial allocations are given in the CSF adopted on 13 July 1994, particularly on pages 32 (by sector) and 126-129 (by programme). This document is being transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament.

In the mean time, adjustments have been made inside many of the operational programmes following the procedures laid down by the Structural Funds regulations and the CSF. The current situation regarding the take-up of appropriations by programme is shown in the table which is also being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The interim assessment currently underway and the mechanisms for amending operational programmes under the CSF should to ensure that all the appropriations will be taken up before the end of the period, i.e. before 31 December 2001 for payments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4049/97 by José Torres Couto (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: The CGTP-IN trade union and the ESF

Two years ago, the Commission decided to suspend the professional training programmes of the UGT, one of Portugal's trade union federations, for 'irregularities' allegedly committed by it, the existence of which has not to date been established by any Portuguese court.

At the time, the Portuguese press published reports of irregularities committed by the other national trade union federation, the CGTP-IN - namely the falsification of invoices to justify irregular use of the Structural Funds. Subsequently, a director from DG V (ESF), of Portuguese nationality, informed me that virtually the entire operational expenses of the CGTP-IN were being met from ESF funds.

Since the Commission has so far failed to provide any further information on the matter, can it, as a matter of urgency, explain the present state of affairs concerning the CGTP-IN and the ESF?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 March 1998)

In its normal control activity, the Commission has on different occasions controlled the actions developed by the General confederation of Portuguese workers (CGTP-IN), which were co-financed by the European social fund (ESF).

The Commission requested in April 1997 the national authorities to carry out a control in addition to that performed by the Commission. In July 1997 the national authorities informed the Commission that this audit request was accepted and that it was already taking place.

The Commission is waiting for the results of this audit. If necessary, it will take action in order to protect its financial interest.

In the meantime, the Commission has been systematically examining dossiers for which irregularies have been found and, since the beginning of 1998, has made decisions to reduce co-funding in 14 instances and to suspend co-funding in 2 others. The amounts of money involved are ESC 218 658 132 and ESC 49 360 078, respectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4209/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

What action has now been taken against Germany, France and Greece, which are not yet complying with the judgment? Are any other Member States not currently complying and what action has the Commission taken in respect of these?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4208/97, E-4209/97, E-4210/97 and E-4211/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question P-1211/97 by Mr Tomlinson ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )), where a decision of the Court on a reference for a preliminary ruling constitutes a general interpretation of Community law, the Commission writes - in principle within two months - to each Member State asking how they apply the act in question and related provisions. In the case in point, such a letter was sent to the fifteen Member States.

Examination of the replies showed that a number of Member States had not at that stage drawn all the conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), in particular Germany, Greece and France. As regards the latter two, the Commission decided to investigate the matter under the Article 169 procedure. With regard to Germany, proceedings suspended pending the above-mentioned preliminary ruling were resumed, and the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion.

Lastly, in the absence of a reply to the administrative letter from the Commission about the implementing measures adopted by Austria, the Commission also decided to investigate the case of this Member State under the Article 169 procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4208/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

What action was taken originally by the Commission to determine whether all Member States were complying fully with the ECJ judgment in Elida Gibbs Limited?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4208/97, E-4209/97, E-4210/97 and E-4211/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question P-1211/97 by Mr Tomlinson ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )), where a decision of the Court on a reference for a preliminary ruling constitutes a general interpretation of Community law, the Commission writes - in principle within two months - to each Member State asking how they apply the act in question and related provisions. In the case in point, such a letter was sent to the fifteen Member States.

Examination of the replies showed that a number of Member States had not at that stage drawn all the conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), in particular Germany, Greece and France. As regards the latter two, the Commission decided to investigate the matter under the Article 169 procedure. With regard to Germany, proceedings suspended pending the above-mentioned preliminary ruling were resumed, and the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion.

Lastly, in the absence of a reply to the administrative letter from the Commission about the implementing measures adopted by Austria, the Commission also decided to investigate the case of this Member State under the Article 169 procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Plight of earthquake victims

Following the tragic succession of earthquakes in central Italy, the Union has promised to provide funds, although the amount earmarked is insufficient. Will the Commission therefore say when the money can be used? Who is to blame for the delays in building prefabricated houses for the earthquake victims still living in the open air and hence for the failure to respect the human rights so constantly invoked by the Community?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The Commission renews its expression of sympathy for the victims of the earthquakes which devastated central Italy in the autumn of 1997. The Commission is aware of the extent of the damage suffered by European citizens in these regions and the huge financial losses occasioned by the earthquakes.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that in the 1997 budget there is no appropriation under the heading (B4-3400) for emergency aid for disaster victims in the Community enabling solidarity measures to be implemented. As matters stand, this form of action, which brings aid rapidly to the most seriously affected victims, will disappear from the budget in 1998.

The Commission has confirmed to the Italian authorities that it is ready to launch the necessary procedures in the partnership framework to include specific reconstruction measures in the single programming documents under Objective 5(b) for these regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4210/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

In particular, in the case of preliminary rulings relating to the interpretation of the Community law on VAT, is it the case that the European Commission must, within two months of a decision being released, write to each of the Member States asking how they apply the measure in question?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4208/97, E-4209/97, E-4210/97 and E-4211/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question P-1211/97 by Mr Tomlinson ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )), where a decision of the Court on a reference for a preliminary ruling constitutes a general interpretation of Community law, the Commission writes - in principle within two months - to each Member State asking how they apply the act in question and related provisions. In the case in point, such a letter was sent to the fifteen Member States.

Examination of the replies showed that a number of Member States had not at that stage drawn all the conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), in particular Germany, Greece and France. As regards the latter two, the Commission decided to investigate the matter under the Article 169 procedure. With regard to Germany, proceedings suspended pending the above-mentioned preliminary ruling were resumed, and the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion.

Lastly, in the absence of a reply to the administrative letter from the Commission about the implementing measures adopted by Austria, the Commission also decided to investigate the case of this Member State under the Article 169 procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4211/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

Is it correct that there are set procedures for ensuring consistency of application of the EC VAT rules following decisions of the ECJ?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4208/97, E-4209/97, E-4210/97 and E-4211/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

As the Commission indicated in its answer to Written Question P-1211/97 by Mr Tomlinson ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997. )), where a decision of the Court on a reference for a preliminary ruling constitutes a general interpretation of Community law, the Commission writes - in principle within two months - to each Member State asking how they apply the act in question and related provisions. In the case in point, such a letter was sent to the fifteen Member States.

Examination of the replies showed that a number of Member States had not at that stage drawn all the conclusions from the Elida Gibbs judgment of 24 October 1996 (Case C-317/94), in particular Germany, Greece and France. As regards the latter two, the Commission decided to investigate the matter under the Article 169 procedure. With regard to Germany, proceedings suspended pending the above-mentioned preliminary ruling were resumed, and the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion.

Lastly, in the absence of a reply to the administrative letter from the Commission about the implementing measures adopted by Austria, the Commission also decided to investigate the case of this Member State under the Article 169 procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Energy self-sufficiency in Andalusia

Andalusia's self-sufficiency rate in energy is a mere 8%, although the figure for Spain as a whole is 30%.

Can the Commission state what projects for local production (on the basis of cogeneration and renewable energy) have been funded from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in the past, or are being funded now?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 February 1998)

In 1986-91, Andalusia received approximately ECU 25 million under the Community Initiative Valoren for 126 projects to promote local production of alternative energy (solar, wind power, biomass) and to improve the use of energy.

In 1994-99, the Commission is granting assistance from the European Regional Development Fund of ECU 118.3 million for a global grant managed by IDAE (Instituto para la diversificación y el ahorro energético) covering all the Spanish areas eligible under Objective 1 for the same purposes as the assistance mentioned above. Since this is a programme depending on applications received, a regional breakdown of the figure given is currently not possible.

The operational programme for Andalusia also provides, over the same period and in the field of alternative energy, for several aid schemes part-financed by the ERDF with a volume of approximately ECU 14 million.

The Cohesion Fund has not supported any projects of this kind in the region, as the scope of this Fund is to finance projects in the field of the environment and transport infrastructures of common interest.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4000/97 by Danilo Poggiolini (PPE), Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE), Antonio Graziani (PPE), Giampaolo D'Andrea (PPE), Michl Ebner (PPE), Livio Filippi (PPE), Maria Colombo Svevo (PPE), Vincenzo Viola (PPE), Carlo Casini (PPE), Alessandro Fontana (PPE) and Giovanni Burtone (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Selection criteria for the recruitment of trainees to the Commission's administration

Given the rising number of applications for traineeships in the Commission's services and the reduced number of posts available, which inevitably means that many applications are rejected, and the obligation to ensure transparency in relations between EU citizens and their institutions, can the Commission:

1. say exactly what criteria are used, within the national quotas, for selecting the trainees recruited to the Commission's administrative services, particularly for the first selection round in which candidates' names are entered in the so-called 'Blue Book'?

2. Indicate the criteria for paying some but not all trainees?

3. Provide the figures for the different national quotas?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

1. The selection criteria for in-service training with the Commission are set out in the rules governing in-service training of 7 July 1997.

In-service training is open to candidates who have not already benefited from in-service training in another European institution or body and who have completed by the closing date for applications a course of university education and obtained a full degree or its equivalent. The age limit is 30 and applicants must have a thorough knowledge of one Community language and a satisfactory knowledge of one other.

Applicants are selected on the basis of qualifications and, while there are no national quotas, an appropriate geographical balance is maintained taking account of the population of each country and the number of applicants. Priority is given to applicants on the basis of the results obtained during their studies.

The Commission has introduced a more rigorous and systematic procedure for examining stagiaires' applications through the creation of preselection groups for each nationality made up of Commission officials of that nationality.

2. The number of stagiaires who receive a grant is determined by the budget available. The Commission would prefer to be in a position to pay all its stagiaires and for this reason wrote to the president of the Parliament and the president of the budgets committee on 23 October 1997 to inform them that it intends to increase gradually the number of grants available each year from 800 to 1 200 with a view to ensuring that all stagiaires are paid. This operation will start in 1999 with a request for a 10% increase in the stage budget line A-3200.

3. There are no national quotas for stagiaires. A table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat shows the numbers of stagiaires recruited by nationality in 1996 and 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3913/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Seveso directive

For requirements relating to the protection of the environment and the safety of establishments the directives

- of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC) ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )),

- of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (96/61/EC) ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. )) and

- of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (96/82/EC) ((OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13. ))

are of fundamental importance.

The last two of these directives must be implemented by the Member States by 1999 at the latest. During the discussions this has prompted a number of views giving rise to the following questions to the Commission have been put forward.

Article 12(2) of Directive 96/61/EC requires the Member States to ensure that no substantial change is made to an installation governed by the directive unless an authorization procedure is first completed. Articles 3 and 6 to 10 of the directive apply to the procedure for the issue of permits.

Is this provision to be so implemented by the Member States that, because of Article 3(e) of Directive 96/61/EC, the safety report revised pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 96/82/EC is also to be submitted to the competent authority before a permit is issued if it concerns an installation within the meaning of Directive 96/61/EC?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

Article 12(2) of the IPPC Directive stipulates that no substantial change to an installation planned by the operator may be made without a permit issued in accordance with the Directive.

For installations to which the provisions of both the IPPC Directive and Seveso II Directive (Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances) apply, Article 10 of the Seveso II Directive specifies the cases in which the operator must act (when modifying an installation, a plant, a process or the type and quantity of the hazardous substances which may have important implications for the major-accident hazards) and describes the operator's specific obligations (to review or modify the concept for the prevention of major accidents, the management systems and the procedures with regard to Articles 7 and 9 and to review or modify the safety report and notify the competent authority before making the changes).

A permit pursuant to the IPPC Directive therefore cannot be issued before any major alteration is made for installations which are also covered by the Seveso II Directive unless the obligations of that Directive are also met.