ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2893/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Council (16 September 1997)

Subject: Nickel release levels for the alloy used in the 1 and 2 euro coins

The nickel directive (94/27/EC) ((OJ L 188, 22.7.1994, p. 1. )) prohibits the use of a nickel alloy with a nickel release level of greater than 0.5 ug/cm2 per week for products intended to come in direct and prolonged contact with the human skin.

Given the fact that certain workers (e.g. bank tellers/cash desk operators) have a high level of contact with coins, does the Council consider that coins are products which come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin?

If so, will the Council ensure that the nickel alloy chosen for the euro coins conforms to the standards for such products laid down in the nickel directive?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2893/97 and E-2895/97 (22 December 1997)

The technical specifications for euro coins and, more specifically, the metal to be used in them, are the subject of a proposal for a Regulation submitted by the Commission in June 1997. In that proposal, the Commission recommends that nickel should be used only in the 1 and 2 euro coins, representing some 8% of the total euro coinage. This should be compared with the present situation in which the vast majority of Member States use nickel in about 75% of all coins.

Because of their high values, the 1 and 2 euro coins will need additional security features to reduce the scope of possible fraud. With present technology, it would be very difficult to test, develop and produce an alternative for nickel by the deadline for the introduction of euro coins of 1 January 2002. Accordingly, after consulting the Scientific Committee for Toxicity and Ecotoxicity of Chemical Compounds, the Commission is upholding its proposal that nickel should be used only in the 1 and 2 euro coins.

The Council made a first examination of the Commission proposal at its meeting of 7 July 1997 and reached agreement in principle on the Commission proposal subject, in particular, to any modification to be decided upon in the light of possible amendments by the European Parliament on first and second reading. It should be borne in mind that this regulation cannot be adopted by the Council until the Member States adopting the euro as the single currency have been selected (Article 105a(2) of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 109k thereof in particular).

Since adoption of this Regulation is subject to the cooperation procedure with the Euroepan Parliament under Article 189c of the Treaty, the Council will adopt its common position after examining the Opinion adopted by the European Parliament at its first reading on 6 November 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3217/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Driving licences in EU Member States

What is the position regarding national driving licences whilst driving in the EU.

Are citizens entitled to use their own national driving licences whilst driving a vehicle purchased in a Member State for use in that state?

Is it necessary to exchange one's driving licence for a licence of the state concerned or to use an International Driving Licence?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1997)

Article 1.2 of Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) foresees mutual recognition of all valid driving licences issued by Member States. As from 1 July 1996, when that Directive came into effect, Council Directive 80/1263/EEC ((OJ L 375, 31.12.1985. )), which provided for the obligatory exchange of a driving licence within one year after a person took up residence in another Member State, was repealed. Consequently, citizens may continue to use their national driving licence when taking up residence in another Member State and when driving a car purchased in the Member State of normal residence. It is not necessary to use an international driving licence.

However, Article 1.3 of Directive 91/439/EEC stipulates that:

' Where the holder of a valid national driving licence takes up normal residence in a Member State other than that which issued the licence, the host Member State may apply to the holder of the licences its national rules on the period of validity of the licences, medical checks and tax arrangements and may enter on the licence any information indispensable for administration '.

Holders of licences who take up normal residence in a Member State other than the one in which a licence was issued, therefore have to comply with the national rules of that Member State as they are applied to the nationals of that Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3247/97 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Research appropriations for the development of digital television

Will the Commission state the amount of Community appropriations allocated for research into the development of digital television?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

The development of European technological specifications for digital television was supported by the RACE programme within the 3rd research and development framework programme which laid the basis for moving picture expert group (MPEG) and digital video broadcasting (DVB) - compatible services that have already been launched over satellites and cable networks.

Today, the ACTS and Esprit programmes support digital production and authoring tools, the validation of terrestrial and cellular television, the introduction of interactive television, electronic cinema and the development of universal set-top-boxes.

The total Commission contribution for the ACTS programme was 52 MECU including:

- Digital production and switching of compressed bitstreams: 6.1 MECU

- Validation of terrestrial TV: 6.6 MECU

- Cellular interactive TV over microwave networks: 11 MECU

- Interactive TV (for cable, satellite and terrestrial): 9.8 MECU

- Multimedia over DAB and GSM networks: 4.7 MECU

- Electronic cinema: 3.3 MECU

- Set-top box for terrestrial TV: 2.1 MECU

- Programme guide and user interfaces: 3.5 MECU

- Quality of service: 4.2 MECU

- Socio-economic aspects: 0.5 MECU.

The total Commission contribution for the ESPRIT programme was 7.8 MECU including:

- Digital production and authoring systems: 2.8 MECU

- Technologies and services for cable networks: 1.7 MECU

- Home-bus for digital TV: 1.3 MECU

- Set-top box: 2 MECU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/97 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Selection procedure for the recruitment of administrative assistants (accounting/auditing) (EUR/B/105)

The Commission recently completed the selection procedure for the recruitment of administrative assistants (accounting/auditing) (EUR/B/105). For all stages of this procedure (written applications, admission to the written test, admission to the oral test, list of suitable candidates) can the Commission indicate the number of candidates, giving a breakdown by nationality and sex?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1997)

The competition to which the Honourable Member refers was brought to a close in June 1997 and the names of 148 successful candidates were placed on the reserve list.

The data released on the various stages of the competition have been set out in a table which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Reducing bureaucracy involved in the EU's research policy and regional policy

The European Union seeks to reduce disparities in the development of its regions by means of regional and structural policy. However, in many cases regions fail to receive EU aid, especially because of the EU's excessive bureaucracy and complicated application procedures rather, for example, than because projects are of poor quality. A similar situation exists with regard to the Community's research programmes: the application procedure is very troublesome.

What practical measures will the Commission adopt to take account of the need to reduce EU bureaucracy, for example in the forthcoming reform of the Structural Funds for regional policy, to ensure that aid is allocated more effectively at regional level?

How does the Commission ensure that those whose applications are eliminated receive feedback on their applications, so that they can learn from their experiences?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 October 1997)

As far as the future reorganisation of the Structural Funds is concerned, the Commission has already stated, in its communication 'Agenda 2000' ((COM(97) 2000 final. )), that it wishes to simplify the arrangements for their implementation, principally by clarifying the responsibilities of the Member States, the regions and the Commission. It will set out the operational arrangements to apply to the Structural Funds during the next programming period when it adopts its proposals for new regulations early in 1998.

With regard to geographical eligibility, the Commission will explain, as it does now when it is asked, the reasons why it does not accept the regions proposed by the Member States. In the case of specific projects, it is up to the authorities of the Member States to provide the information required in line with existing national systems.

As far as the research and technological development (RTD) programmes of the Community are concerned, the procedures for obtaining support are fundamentally different, as they involve direct funding decisions by the Commission itself, following the opinion of programme committees of Member State representatives. Over the years, the Commission has steadily improved the transparency of its procedures and the time taken to reach decisions on funding. Every proposer, whether successful or not, receives written confirmation of the Commission's evaluation decision. This notification, which is sent out immediately after the decision, gives briefly the reasons for the decision and the possibility to seek further explanations from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: European legislation on reducing air pollution and safeguarding the quality of life in cities

In its answer to Written Question E-1673/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 78.)) the Commission said that on the basis of Directive 96/62/EC ((OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55)) it would draw up new proposals on air quality and the quality of life in the urban environment.

It also referred to a new strategy adopted by the Commission on 18 June 1996 in order to reduce pollution caused by vehicles.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. what the practical arrangements and timetable are for the formulation of the Commission's proposals on the basis of Directive 96/62/EC;

2. what in essence are the main features of the new strategy it adopted in June 1996 and what official documents can be referred to in this connection?

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

1. A proposal for a Council Directive relating to the establishment of limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and lead was adopted on 8 October 1997 ((COM(97) 500. )).

2. The strategy which the Commission adopted on 18 June 1996 for controlling atmospheric emissions from road transport ((COM(96) 248. )) can be traced back to the results of the Auto/Oil programme. The aim is to improve air quality in the Community in the run-up to 2010 by reducing pollutant emissions by between 60 and 70% compared with 1996, using an integrated, balanced and cost-effective approach. In this context, and as part of the strategy, two legislative proposals have been adopted to improve petrol and diesel fuels ((COM(97) 271. )) and set stricter standards for passenger cars² (and for light commercial vehicles) by the year 2000.

Parliament held its first reading on the two proposals on 10 April 1997 and the Council reached a common position on them on 7 October 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3050/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Green Paper on commerce

With reference to the green paper on commerce (COM(96) 530 final), will the Commission set up a statistical observatory on commerce to collect, process and publicize:

1. information on supply and demand (market share per distribution channel, price levels, volume levels, etc.);

2. information by commercial sector and by region?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

As stressed in the Green Paper on commerce, improving the statistics on commerce is one of the Commission's concerns. Macroeconomic statistics must be able to meet the needs of decision-makers in the sector, who require reliable, homogeneous and constantly updated information on developments. The Commission has therefore planned a number of measures to this end which will lead to a series of publications.

At the regular meetings of Eurostat's Working Party on Statistics on Commerce, the Commission is working on implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 58/97 of 20 December 1996 on structural business statistics ((OJ L 14, 17.1.1997. )), which contains an annex devoted to commerce and distribution. When presenting this Regulation to operators in the sector, the Commission proposed that a conference be held on statistics on commerce. This event, aimed at presenting and reporting on the latest figures available and at allowing those concerned to express their views, should take place during the first quarter of 1998. A conference of this kind could be repeated on an annual basis.

In view of the work outlined above, there are currently no plans to set up an observatory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Fishing by European vessels off the coast of Argentina/Patagonia

Has the EU concluded any agreement with Argentina on fishing rights off the coast of Argentina/Patagonia, or does the Commission intend to conclude such an agreement? If so, when?

Is the Commission aware that there are complaints in Argentina/Patagonia that fishermen from Spain are overfishing the waters off the coast of Patagonia?

Is the Commission aware that, as a result, certain marine mammals (including the rare baleen whale) and seabirds (including penguins) are having increasing difficulty in finding food, and, partly because of this, that growing numbers of them are being washed up on the coast in a weak condition?

Will the Commission investigate, in consultation with the Government of Argentina, how fishing can be adjusted so as to guarantee the survival of marine mammals and seabirds in this region, and will the Commission, jointly with the Government of Argentina, support a regional centre for the care of marine mammals and seabirds, from which the ecosystem off the coast of Patagonia can also be monitored?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1997)

The Community concluded a fisheries agreement with Argentina in 1993 ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector - OJ L 318, 20.12.1993. )). This entered into force in May 1994 for a period of five years.

The fishing effort in Argentinian fishing waters, to judge by the level of catches of the main species, hake, has increased considerably over the last year.

The Commission is not aware of any specific accusations made against Spanish fishermen operating in Argentinian waters and would furthermore point out that their activities under the agreement are carried out in the context of joint entreprises with Argentinian partners and furthermore, are subject to specific quotas, unlike other fishing operators in these waters.

With regard to the situation of marine mammals and seabirds, the Commission is not aware of the facts reported by the Honourable Member. However, if the Honourable Member would transmit scientific information with regard to the threats to the species mentioned and concerning their state of conservation in the area concerned, the Commission will examine the situation.

The Commission is ready at all times to consider support for actions concerning the conservation of resources and the marine environment of the coasts of Patagonia. However, this can only be envisaged when the Argentinian government prepares a proposal for which it seeks international support.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3575/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (4 November 1997)

Subject: Abolition of the compulsory examination to obtain a hunting licence in Spain

Further to my question H-0727/97 ((Debates of the European Parliament (October 1997). )), the Spanish Parliament, in amending Law 4/1989 on the conservation of rural areas and wildlife, has abolished the requirement to pass an examination in order to obtain a hunting licence.

What is the Commission's assessment of this change in the law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1997)

The Commission's powers are limited by the EC Treaty and it can only object to a Member State's legislation where it contravenes Community law.

Community environmental legislation, while it does contain provisions concerning hunting, sets no requirements in relation to examinations which must be passed by hunters before they obtain a hunting licence.

Therefore, the Commission has no powers to intervene in this matter and does not consider it appropriate to comment.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2296/97 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (26 June 1997)

Subject: Outstanding appropriations for structural actions

Can the Commission provide the following information, as at 31 December 1996:

1. What were the outstanding appropriations for the EAGGF (Guarantee), the FIFG, the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund, broken down by Member State? Had these amounts been committed in 1996, 1995, 1994 or before?

2. What was the ratio between outstanding appropriations per Member State and commitments accumulated by each Member State over the period 1994-1996?

3. What was the comparative evolution of the execution of commitment appropriations, payment appropriations and outstanding appropriations?

4. What was the total in outstanding appropriations on 31 December in relation to the annual commitment appropriations?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (1 December 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 P-3559/97 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission (4 November 1997)

Subject: Publicity in respect of EU aid - EAGGF Guidance Section

The European Union grants aid to numerous agricultural and rural projects under the EAGGF Guidance Section, particularly in the context of structural policy.

Project contracts undertake as a matter of course to respect the obligations to publicize regarding the European funds, but are often in the dark about the precise nature of this undertaking.

Would it be possible for the Commission to specify clearly the nature of the obligations regarding publicity, the length of the undertakings entered into and the threshold of EAGGF funding to which this ruling applies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

The obligation to publicise measures part-financed by the Structural Funds, including the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance ection, arises from Article 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 on the coordination of the Structural Funds of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )).

Commission Decision 94/342/CE of 31 May 1994, concerning information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) ((OJ L 152, 18.6.1994. )), expanded on the obligation contained in Article 32 of the above-mentioned Regulation, laying down standards for publicity and information that all beneficiaries of Structural Fund assistance must comply with.

In the case of infrastructure measures, the threshold for compulsory measures is ECU 1 million for the Structural Funds and ECU 500 000 for the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The national, regional and local authorities are responsible for implementing the Commission Decision. Final beneficiaries must comply with the rules communicated to them by those authorities. To facilitate the task of the authorities concerned, the Commission has prepared a practical guide for their use. This guide has been transmitted to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3010/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Substainable farming projects

Is the Commission aware of the 'Tir Cymen' scheme in Wales which supports sustainable foarming? Does it plan to support similar schemes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Tir Cymen programme is approved and cofinanced by the Commission under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )), on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside.

The Commission has approved over 120 agri-environment programmes throughout the Community. A report on the application of the Regulation is in preparation.