ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/97 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Ban on the transhipment of swordfish catches by the Community fleet in Chilean ports

Since 1990 Chile has been banning the transhipment of swordfish caught outside its waters by the Community fleet, which constitutes a violation of GATT Article V.1 concerning 'freedom of transit'. The ban is based on the request for a health certificate, which is unjustified for merchandise in transit and in practice is equivalent to preventing transhipments, thereby violating the freedom of transit established by the afore-mentioned Article V of GATT.

In her answer to Question H-0320/96 ((Debates of the European Parliament (May 1996). )) on the same subject Commissioner Bonino said that the problem could be settled under Article 30 of the EU/Chile Cooperation Agreement and that otherwise Article V of GATT would be the only possible solution. Can the Commission therefore say when it intends to call for the application of Article V of GATT to solve this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997)

Article 30 of the new Cooperation Agreement with Chile signed on 21 June 1996 provides for cooperation on fishing matters, including resource conservation.

On the disagreement to which the Honourable Member refers over landing of swordfish caught by Community vessels outside the Chilean exclusive economic zone the Commission has ascertained Member States' positions through the appropriate channels and agreed with Chile on the need for an initial exchange of information on this fishery and the state of stocks, with the ultimate aim of establishing technical and scientific cooperation in this area.

Owing to lack of available information no progress has so far been made. However, given that cooperation ought to facilitate the adoption of a mutually satisfactory solution to the present difficulty, both parties are at the moment completing collection of the necessary information with a view to opening technical discussions in the very near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/97 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Assistance for the Lake Constance region

Can the Commission say how much assistance the Lake Constance region (Landkreis Konstanz, Landkreis Bodenseekreis, Lindau-Bodensee, Land Vorarlberg) has received from the European Union since 1990?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2761/97 by Willi Görlach (PSE) and Barbara Schmidbauer (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Complaints against airports and airlines with regard to ground handling arrangements

1. In 1994 the Commission initiated several infringement proceedings against airports and airlines on the grounds that they had set up an unjustified monopoly in the field of ground handling. What is the state of progress with these proceedings, and particularly the proceedings against Flughafen Frankfurt/Main AG?

2. How is the Commission ensuring that the purposes of the Council of Transport Ministers, as expressed in the ground handling directive adopted on 24 October 1996 on the basis of Article 84 of the EC Treaty to reconcile the transport and competitive aspects, are also heeded without restriction in the Commission's proceedings? Will the Commission be respecting the transitional provisions in the ground handling directive and enforcing them, in particular the rule in Article 9 whereby an airport's proven capacity and space constraints will permit the airport to be exempted from premature market exposure until 1 January 2003 at the latest?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1997)

1. The Commission terminated a number of the proceedings after the market was opened up to a second supplier of groundhandling services. This was the case, for example, with the Spanish airports and Dublin airport. The groundhandling market will also be opened up to a second supplier at Athens airport on 1 January 1998, one year ahead of the date laid down in Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports ((OJ L 272, 25.10.1996. )). As far as Frankfurt airport is concerned, the matter is still under examination.

2. Implementation of Directive 96/67/EC is without prejudice to the application of the competition rules laid down in the EC Treaty. As part of the proceedings, the Commission has to establish whether Frankfurt airport committed an abuse of a dominant position by establishing for itself, without any objective need, a monopoly in the supply of groundhandling services. The arguments regarding capacity and available space put forward by the parties are being examined in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1990/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Information on the amount of EC aid granted to the County of Wiltshire since June 1994

Can the Commission state the total amount of Community aid granted to the County of Wiltshire, in the UK, since June 1994, under:

1. the European Social Fund;

2. the Fourth Research Framework Programme;

3. Community programmes in the environment and energy fields;

4. the EAGGF, Guidance and Guarantee sections;

5. other Community Programmes?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Since the Honourable Member has stated that this is a priority question, the Commission would remind her that under Parliament's rules of procedure priority questions are those which 'require an immediate answer but no detailed research'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2656/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Light rail system for Dublin

The Commission has stipulated that one of the lines of Dublin's Luas light rail system - the one which terminates at Dundrum - must be completed by 2001 if the project is to receive assistance from the Structural Funds.

Recently the Irish Government decided to commission an independent study on the viability of running the light rail system underground. This move was taken after lobbying by interest groups such as the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Automobile Association (AA), but has been opposed by those campaigning for major improvements in Dublin's system of public transport, who believe that the Luas would be central to such improvements. It is also feared that the new study could significantly delay construction of the Luas and upset the timetable agreed with the EU.

An environmental impact assessment undertaken for Córas Iompar Èireann, Ireland's public transport company, estimated that running the system underground would cost IR£308 million more than keeping it on the surface.

Has the Commission made any representations to the Irish authorities about the potential delays which he decision to re-evaluate the Luas project could cause? Would EU funding for the project be jeopardized by delays?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1997)

The Commission has agreed to cofinance MECU 216 of expenditure on the light rail project in Dublin under the Irish operational programme for transport 1994-1999, at the rate of 65% (European regional development fund grant of MECU 140). Cost increases on the project, such as those which might be caused by running the system underground, are not foreseen to be cofinanced under the transport operational programme.

The position with regard to the availability of structural funds in respect of the 1994-1999 programming period is that legally binding commitments (contracts) must be entered into by 31 December 1999 at the latest. Expenditure on these contracts can be incurred up to 31 December 2000. In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may extend the latter deadline.

It is evident that the current timetable for the project will be delayed by at least the time taken to complete and deliberate on the study commissioned by the Irish authorities and possibly longer, if the study approves running the light rail transit system (LUAS) underground. The LUAS project has been considered in the mid-term review of the Irish Community support framework (CSF). The CSF monitoring committee at its meeting of 29 July 1997 decided that if in the spring of 1998 it cannot be shown that sufficient progress has been achieved to make completion likely within the existing agreed timescale for the project, all or part of the funds will be reallocated to other projects within the CSF.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/97 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Community environmental grant

Under budget heading B4-306, subsidies are granted for environmental protection. A list of organizations which have received such subsidies was published in OJ C 148 of 16 May 1997.

What project was submitted by the 'Fédération européenne pour le transport et l'environnement'?

Can the Commission supply more information about this organization? Can it supply a copy of the organization's bye-laws and a recent list of the members of its committee?

To what extent has the Commission verified that the funds have been spent correctly?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The 'Fédération européenne pour le transport et l'environnement' was awarded funding towards its 1996 work programme. This funding was not for a project as such, but is known as 'activity funding'. It covered general functioning expenses associated with the work programme, as well as specific expenses linked to the activities in that programme. The programme involved research and general awareness raising on the environmental impact of transport and of ways of addressing the consequent problems. Activities included publications, conferences, seminars and lobbying campaigns. The organisation cooperates regularly and effectively with the Commission in promoting environmental awareness and furthering the aims of Community environment policy.

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the relevant extract from the 'Moniteur Belge' which contains the statutes of the above-mentioned organisation, as well the current list of its board members.

A routine control has recently been satisfactorily concluded by the Commission, including financial control, on the activities on this organisation in 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3165/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Restart of the Magnox nuclear processing plant in Sellafield, UK

The UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has recently approved plans to restart the Magnox nuclear processing plant in Sellafield, UK, after an eight-month shutdown to carry out refurbishment work.

Has the Commission sought details from the NII on what basis its decision to approve the restart was made? If so, can the Commission outline what details it sought and what reply/replies it received?

Is the Commission satisfied with the refurbishment work carried out at the plant? Will it seek an independent assessment of that work to establish if the plant's operations are likely to meet EU and international safety standards for nuclear installations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

Under the terms of the Community basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (Council Directive 80/836/Euratom as amended by Directive 84/467/Euratom ((OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. ))), it is the responsibility of the Member States to issue the authorizations in question. The Commission would be required to intervene only if it had received information indicating that a Member State was failing to respect the requirements set out in these standards. This position will not change with the implementation of the new basic safety standards Directive 96/29/Euratom ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. )), which Member States will require to ensure by May 2000.

Therefore no information has been requested or received from the British authorities on this matter. Equally, the Commission has no basis for seeking to set up an independent assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Turkey and freedom of expression

Given the most recent communication from the Commission (COM(97) 394) which urges the broadest possible cooperation with European and, more importantly, Turkish NGOs working for improvements in human rights and so forth, is the Commission aware of the Turkish Interior Ministry document (number B05HID0000073/472) dated January 1997 which sets forth a programme impeding the activities of NGOs reporting on human rights?

What assurances can the Commission give that this is no longer the policy of the Turkish government?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the document to which the Honourable Member is referring.

As for the new Turkish government's stance on human rights and democratisation, the Prime Minister has on a number of occasions publicly acknowledged the ground his country still has to cover in this field.

The programme proposed in the Commission's communication of 15 July on the future of relations with Turkey specifically involves cooperating closely with the government on human rights and thereby fostering the smooth development of civil society in the country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/97 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Independence of the Commission

How can the duty of Members of the Commission to be independent be compatible with the appearance of Commissioner Franz Fischler on an advertising postcard issued by the US 'Imadec International Business School', against the background of an official EU flag, proclaiming 'custom made for the European top management'?

Did Mr Fischler receive any fee for this appearance?

Do Commissioner Fischler and the Commission believe that this US one-year course is an indispensable preparation for performing the duties of a Member of the Commission?

If so, when will the present Commissioners be attending this course?

Will this course be a future requirement for appointment as a Commissioner?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1997)

The postcard issued by the Imadec International Business School - which Mr Fischler had not seen, but has since obtained on request - is based on photographs taken during an MBA diploma awarding ceremony for 3 000 students from California's universities assembled in Hayward University in June 1997. These universities took advantage of the occasion to bestow on Mr Fischler an honorary doctorate for his life's activities in the agricultural area.

The Commission and its members have always attached great importance to educational activities and will continue to do their utmost to support them.

Mr Fischler has never received fees for his appearances.

The Commission would invite the Honourable Member to transmit any documentation that could allow the Commission to evaluate to what extent the postcard involves unacceptable advertising using a picture without authorisation, or simply positive information on the merits of a training programme.

Incidentally, the Honourable Member would be well advised to give a closer look to the flag that appeared on the postcard. If he did so, he might notice that the flag is not the European flag, but that of the Imadec.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/97 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Council (1 September 1997)

Subject: Duty-free sales

The Council has decided that duty-free sales should cease in 1999. The stated reason is that duty-free sales are not logically compatible with the internal market.

What is the purpose of this decision?

Could this purpose be achieved by less drastic means?

If so, what measures might be considered sufficient?

If not, why not?

How do duty-free sales hamper the proper functioning of the internal market?

What was the basis for the Council's decision?

How many jobs in the EU are affected by this Council decision?

What was the Council's assessment of the decision's impact on employment?

What is the Council's present assessment of the decision's impact on employment?

How can the Council justify the destruction of thousands of jobs on purely ideological grounds?

Will the Council create replacement jobs for the people who have been deprived of them by this ideologically motivated decision?

If so, when and where will these jobs be created?

How will the creation of these jobs be funded?

If not, how can such decisions be reconciled with the numerous statements by all manner of Councils that they will do everything in their power to create jobs?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2666/97 and E-2752/97 (7 November 1997)

The Council would ask the Honourable Members to kindly refer to the reply given to Written Question No E-1515/97 ((See page 3. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3047/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Green paper on commerce

The debate prompted by the Green Paper on commerce (COM(96) 530 final) should make it possible to identify the measures that can be taken by companies and by the public authorities in the Member States or the EU to enable the sector to meet the challenge of maintaining competitiveness and contributing to employment and social cohesion.

With this in view, will the Commission set up a European body with the participation of senior officials from the Commission and the national governments to examine the factors holding back the development of an integrated single market for commercial activities in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The Commission is aware of the need to hold regular meetings with representatives of the public authorities in the Member States in order to examine questions relating specifically to commercial activities. This is why a body known as the 'Internal Trade Group' was set up at the same time as the Community itself. This group is made up of officials from the national authorities responsible for commerce: the directors-general of national ministries of trade, and government experts from these same ministries who have particular responsibility for European affairs.

The members of this group meet regularly. In addition, the directors-general are generally asked to take part in the annual plenary meetings of the Committee on Commerce and Distribution (CCD), which are attended by the Member of the Commission responsible for the trade and distribution sector.

The Internal Trade Group allows the Commission to inform and consult the Member States on projects concerning internal trade, and to find out their position on such projects. It also provides an opportunity for valuable exchanges of experience and good practice between Member States, an action which features in the integrated programme in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the craft sector.

This group fulfils the request made by the Council in its Resolution of 14 November 1989 to strengthen 'cooperation between the Commission and the Member States through meetings between officials responsible for internal trade'. It cooperated, for example, with the Commission in implementing the communication 'Towards a single market in distribution' ((Doc. COM(91) 41 final. )), tackling the issue of obstacles to cross-border development and thus contributing to the Council's conclusions on this matter.

Its most recent meetings have been devoted to the specific topic of drafting, disseminating and following up the Green Paper on Commerce. The follow-up activities on the Green Paper will include further meetings to allow the Committee members to continue their deliberations on what actions could be taken to enable the sector to meet the challenges facing it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Italian projects for the Urban programme

The deadline for submitting urban development projects for the Urban programme for 1997-1999 expired on 10 January 1997.

How many of the projects put forward originated in Italy?

How many and which ones concern municipalities in cities in the north-west of Italy, in particular Milan, Turin and Genoa?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3013/97 and E-3033/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

On 8 May 1996 the Commission announced its decision on how the financial reserve for the Community Initiatives was to be allocated.

The reference allocation for the Urban Initiative in Italy for 1997-99 is ECU 11.81 million for Objective 1 areas and ECU 6.40 million for other areas (1995 indexed prices).

In point 20 of its communication to the Member States ((OJ C 200, 10.7.1996 )) the Commission invited them to present operational programmes for financing under Urban. No allocations were made to specific areas of any Member State other than to split the amount allocated to each between Objective 1 and other areas.

The Italian authorities have sent a proposal for programmes in the cities of Trieste, Lecce and Catanzaro.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3072/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Environmental agreements

The main objective of the Commission's communication on environmental agreements (COM(96) 561 final) is to promote and facilitate the use of effective and acceptable environmental agreements. These agreements are instruments for the integration or implementation of environment law in the Community. The communication should be seen in the light of the strategy outlined in the fifth action programme to extend the range of environment policy instruments and put into practice the concept of 'shared responsibility'.

The communication also seeks to clarify certain aspects of how environmental agreements can be used to implement certain provisions of Community directives in the Member States and how environmental agreements can be used at Community level.

Does the Commission recommendation on environmental agreements refer only to their transposal into national law or does it also cover the application of the provisions once transposed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1997)

The Commission Recommendation concerning environmental agreements implementing Community directives ((OJ L 333, 21.12.1996. )) not only concerns the transposition of certain provisions of directives into national law but also the implementation of the transposed law. The word 'implementation' includes both the transposition into national law and the application of the transposed provisions. Clearly, where national legislation is in place to ensure compliance with a directive, the form of implementing these rules is less important. Nevertheless, the Commission considers the legal status of agreements as an important element of their success and therefore recommends that they be concluded in a legally-binding form.