ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/98 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Net payments by the Netherlands in 1997

Further to my question of 10 December 1997 (P-4054/97) ((OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 69. )) and the Commission's reply of 19 January 1998, I have the following supplementary questions to put.

1. If the Commission cannot answer my question, why did it take so long to send me any reply at all? Please note that mine was a priority question.

2. Is not the reply unnecessarily denigratory, as the Commission seems to assume that Members of the European Parliament do not know that Commission publications are available on the Internet?

3. In its reply the Commission says that it does not have any data for the budgetary position of the Netherlands in 1997. Afterwards, however, it mentions the Commission's position on this matter. The Commission's position is that it does not wish to provide any information on the subject. Under Article 140 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission must reply orally or in writing to questions put to it by the European Parliament or by its Members. The Commission must supply information in response to questions from Members of the European Parliament.

Is not the Commission violating Article 140 of the Treaty by refusing to share information which it possesses?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

1. The Commission considers it gave a full reply to the Honourable Member's previous question. The reply was given inside the time limit communicated by the Parliament to the Commission.

2. The Commission does not in fact make available on the Internet all the documents it presents to the Council. The previous reply did not contain any comment about members of the Parliament.

3. The Commission attaches great importance to full and rapid replies to parliamentary questions, and devotes considerable care and resources to fulfilling its duty under Article 140 EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0776/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (5 March 1998)

Subject: French legislation on liberalization of the electricity market

A number of Member States are amending their laws on the production and distribution of electricity in connection with the liberalization of the electricity market.

1. Is the Commission aware that France is preparing, or has already adopted, changes to the law in which the 'réseau d'alimentation générale en énergie électrique' is assumed to be the property of Electricité de France (EDF) since it owns the concession for this supply system?

2. Can the Commission look into whether the concession which EDF has had from the French state hitherto provides for ownership of the electricity grid passing to EDF on termination of the concession?

3. If this is not the case, does the Commission feel that the purpose of this amendment to the law is to increase the EDF's own assets by transferring ownership of the electricity grid free of charge, thereby placing EDF in a favourable competitive position on a liberalized electricity market?

4. If so, is this a form of state aid compatible with the EEC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)

The Commission is not aware of a draft law by which the French authorities would transfer the ownership of the electricity distribution network to Electricité de France (EDF) at the expiry of the concession.

The transfer of this network from the state to EDF without any appropriate transfer price might unduly increase the total assets of EDF, thus granting an economic advantage to the undertaking.

The Commission will investigate the circumstances reported in order to assess whether they are compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: New LEADER programme

According to recent statements by Commissioner Fischler, it is planned to extend to LEADER programme to include the whole of European agriculture. Recognising that the agricultural policy of the Union is in a transitional period, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to take measures to ensure that there is no reduction in what has already been achieved in Objective 1 and 5b regions and that essential financial support, in line with the present needs, continues with the new LEADER programme?

2. Does it intend substantially to increase the funds for the new LEADER programme in keeping with the increased area covered and the need for more intensive support for the less-developed regions of the European Union?

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

1. For the regions currently eligible under Objectives 1 and 5(b) which will cease to be eligible under the selection criteria to be used in the new period, the Commission is proposing transitional financial support through regional programmes to be drawn up in agreement with the Member State concerned.

The new rural development Initiative, which the Honourable Member describes as 'new Leader', could provide further support for those regions in accordance with the guidelines on its objectives and scope which the Commission will lay down.

2. The Commission is proposing that 5% of the resources of the Structural Funds should be allocated to the three Community Initiatives, one of which will be the Initiative for rural development, but it has not yet divided that amount among the Initiatives. The concentration of appropriations on three Community Initiatives instead of the existing 14 will improve implementation in the sectors selected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0448/98 by Gerardo Bianco (PPE), Michl Ebner (PPE) and Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Cavalese (Trento) tragedy

On 3 February 1998 an American military plane cut the cables of the Mount Cermis, Cavalese, cable car, causing the death of 20 people of six different nationalities. The plane was on a low-level training flight and is suspected of violating the safety rules for such military operations

Does the Presidency intend to intervene vis-à-vis all commands of air forces operating over European territory and take all the steps needed to ensure compliance with the safety standards laid down by flight regulations?

Answer (4 June 1998)

The Honourable Members are certainly well aware of the great importance the Council attaches to matters regarding aviation safety.

With the aim of improving standards, the European Community is now about to apply for membership of Eurocontrol with a view to establishing and implementing a mechanism for the multilateral development and harmonisation of safety regulations in air traffic management. At the same time, the European Community is studying the possibility of creating an European Aviation Safety Authority.

Regarding lessons to be drawn from the particular accident referred to by the Honourable Members, the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0462/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Aircraft safety in the year 2000

Pilots have threatened a world-wide boycott in the year 2000, fearing that the 'Millennium Bug' will disrupt the computer systems that keep planes in the air and prevent collisions.

Given the extensive, costly and time-consuming computer modifications and replacements required, can the Council please outline measures proposed to coordinate and encourage efforts to respond to these fears and make sure our skies are safe?

Answer (28 May 1998)

As far as air safety is concerned, the Council has not received any proposal from the Commission regarding the so-called 'Millennium Bug'. However, according to information available, the Commission is at the moment carrying out a survey in order to understand the level of awareness, preparation and reaction of air transport stakeholders with regard to this subject matter.

It should be recalled that the industry itself does not consider this to be an insurmountable problem. The operators of the GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites and their ground control stations are improving software that controls the system on the ground to correct its alleged inability to deal with the change to a new millennium. These improvements and corrections would be completed by the end of 1998. The private manufacturers have also taken the necessary remedial action and GPS receivers bought in the past two to three years will be 'millennium compliant'.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Council attaches the utmost importance to the matters regarding air safety. In this regard, it is examining the possibility of establishing a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0326/98 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (10 February 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against persons on the grounds of height

In setting minimum standards of space for passengers in cars, airlines etc., does the Commission agree that the European Union should reconsider endorsement of the CENs use of historical anthropometric data, where it may not take account of current or future needs?

As the populations of Europe vary significantly in average height, does the Commission agree that the EU should seek to enforce ranges of appropriate standards, rather than single unsatisfactory ones?

Would the Commission consider that the CEN should be advised to seek the cooperation of groups representing tall and short people when setting standards?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his written question P-1916/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0156/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Recall of the head of delegation in Bratislava (continued)

Further to the answer given to Question 3153/97 ((OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 157. )), I should be grateful for answers to the following questions:

It is reported that the Commission's anti-fraud unit, UCLAF, has already carried out an investigation into the activities of Mr Georgios Zavvos. What were the findings of UCLAF's investigation?

When will the EP be informed of the findings of the investigation?

How are we then to understand the Commission's statement that Mr Georgios Zavvos was transferred in the interests of the service?

What specific job is Georgios Zavvos currently doing?

How can the Commission guarantee that Mr Georgios Zavvos is no longer involved in the activities which, it is reported, resulted in his transfer (in the interests of the service)?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1998)

The former head of the Commission's delegation in Bratislava has been appointed as an adviser in the Directorate general for external relations: Europe and the new independent States, common foreign and security policy and external missions and is currently working on issues relating to institution building.

The Commission unit on coordination of fraud prevention (UCLAF) investigation into Phare management in Slovakia is not yet terminated but has so far not produced evidence of fraud or corruption on the part of the former head of the delegation of the Commission in Bratislava.

The Commission will keep the Parliament informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Structural Fund appropriations

The amount of outstanding Structural Fund appropriations reportedly increased in 1997 by ECU 2.8 million.

In drawing up the 1997 EU budget, the Commission underestimated payment appropriations by ECU 2 billion, while the budgetary authority cut them by a further ECU 1 bn, the effect of which was a premature halt in 1997 to the settlement of accounts because of a shortfall in payment appropriations.

It is also reported that there will be no extension for implementing Structural Fund commitment appropriations for 1998 and 1999 beyond 1999 and that, therefore, any outstanding appropriations will be irrevocably lost, reducing the particular package of structural measures by an equal amount.

This is a matter of vital importance, particularly for the southern Member States which are in vital need of Structural Fund appropriations to execute the infrastructure projects they require. Would the Commission therefore say:

1. in what way the shortfall in payment appropriations tends to increase the amounts outstanding under the Structural Funds, and

2. what its formal position is on carrying over outstanding commitment appropriations for 1998 and 1999 to subsequent budgets covered by the new Financial Perspective for 2000-2006?

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

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: Taxation of energy products

The proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products - (COM(97)30 final - 97/0111 CNS) ((OJ C 139, 6.5.1997, p. 14. )) allows Member States some freedom of manoeuvre with regard to the technical definition of taxes on energy products, provided that these do not lead to distortions of competition within the internal market.

Regrettably, no clear guidance is provided concerning tax neutrality, but it should be emphasized that experience has shown that recently introduced taxes on energy are not offset by a corresponding reduction in the overall tax burden.

Would the Council undertake, at the same time as adopting the directive in Council, to use any increase in tax revenues to reduce the tax burden on labour? Given that it is mainly families that will bear the brunt of any increase in minimum tax levels, it would be expedient to adopt compensatory measures in the social field, which should primarily benefit people falling within the lowest income brackets.

Answer (28 May 1998)

Article 1(2) of the proposal the Honourable Members cite provides that:

'When implementing this Directive, Member States shall endeavour to avoid any increase in their overall tax burden. In order to attain this objective, Member States shall endeavour in particular to reduce at the same time statutory charges on labour.'

The Council's subordinate bodies are currently examining this proposal. In this context the Council would remind the Honourable Members that, under the terms of the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council on Employment held in Luxembourg in November 1997:

'Each Member State will set a target, if necessary and taking account of its present level, for gradually reducing the overall tax burden and, where appropriate, a target for gradually reducing the fiscal pressure on labour and non-wage labour costs, in particular on relatively unskilled and low-paid labour, without jeopardizing the recovery of public finances or the financial equilibrium of social security schemes. It will examine, if appropriate, the desirability of introducing a tax on energy or on pollutant emissions or any other tax measure.'
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/98 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: International Group of P& I Clubs

I refer to Written Questions E-0164/96, E-0165/96 and E-0166/96 and the answer given by Mr Van Miert on 26 February 1996 ((OJ C 122, 25.4.1996, p. 32. )). Following the Commission's findings on the merits of a complaint lodged by the Greek Maritime Cooperation Committee, London, against the International Group of P& I Clubs (IG P& I Clubs) on the issue of renewing the exemption of the IG P& I Clubs from EC competition rules, the parties to the dispute made further submissions.

However, although a considerable period of time has elapsed, the Commission has not yet delivered its final verdict.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this delay?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

Following the complaint lodged by the Greek Shipping Cooperation Committee against some aspects of the agreements concluded within the International Group of P& I Clubs (IG), the Commission launched a wide investigation on the P& I insurance market. This investigation led to a statement of objections being addressed to the IG on June 1997. In reaction to the statement of objections, the IG adopted some amendments to its arrangements in July 1997 which were ratified by the clubs later that year. In particular, it reduced the level of cover offered from around 18 300 MECU to 3 900 MECU and granted freedom to its members to offer higher levels. The Commission believes that these amendments should alleviate the concerns that the Honourable Member expressed in Written Questions E-0164/96, E-0165/96 and E-0166/96. The IG submitted further proposals to amend their arrangements in November 1997 which are currently under examination.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/98 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: The use of agricultural intervention stocks - fruit and vegetables

Following press claims that millions of kilograms of vegetables and fruit surpluses are being wasted, rather than being consumed by schools across the Union, what measures are the Commission taking to publicise the availability of fruit and vegetable surpluses to schools?

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

Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 ((OJ L 297, 28.10.1996. )) provides for fruit withdrawn from the market to be distributed free to schools. The free distribution of fruit and vegetables for other purposes is also possible, to charities and institutions such as hospitals and prisons, for example.

To publicise that initiative Member States are to inform and help to establish contacts between producer organisations and the schools or other institutions likely to help in the free distribution of the products.

However, high transport costs and the nature of the products require that such distribution be local. The Community, wishing to support the distribution of withdrawn products, will take over some of the costs, in particular the cost of transport between the withdrawal location and the delivery point, and also sorting and packaging costs (in the case of citrus fruits and apples).

For the 1997/98 marketing year one-off aid is also available for the preparation of withdrawn products to allow producer organisations to deliver them to schools and institutions.

Producer organisations withdrawing products must first make such products available for free distribution before they can be sent for biodegradation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Injury prevention

This question concerns the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a programme of Community action from 1999 to 2003 on injury prevention in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (COM(97) 178 final - 97/0132 COD ((OJ C 202, 2.7.1997, p. 20. )).

With regard to the budget, since the funding is allocated only until the end of 1999, does the Commission not consider it essential to ensure from the very beginning that the programme continues until 2003, i.e. the end of the envisaged period?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0704/98, E-0705/98, E-0706/98 and E-0707/98 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The proposed programme on injury prevention aims at the systematic collection of progressively improved information on injuries and their prevention, the sharing of expertise in the selection and adaptation of the best prevention interventions and improvements in the epidemiology of injury. As such, it does not duplicate the health monitoring programme, which seeks to establish health indicators in certain areas as a tool for the overall definition and evaluation of national and Community health policy, but will complement the latter by providing the background material on which appropriate selection of indicators can be made. Moreover, the programme on injury prevention will support the evaluation and dissemination of best practice as regards protective measures, and will promote the drawing up of effective policies. As regards the future development of health policy, present activities judged to merit priority status will feature prominently in future proposals of the Commission.

On 3 November 1997 the Council confirmed its support for the continuation and improvement of the Europe home and leisure accident surveillance system (Ehlass). On 11 March 1998, the Commission accepted, to a large measure, the amendments of the Parliament in first reading related to the integration, development and extension of the former Ehlass system in the proposal for a programme on injury prevention. The proposal of the Commission on this programme is being modified accordingly.

The proposed decision provides that the Commission shall ensure consistency and complementarity between actions to be undertaken under the proposed programme and those implemented under other relevant Community programmes and actions. As such, an appropriate cross link with Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) is already provided. Furthermore, as regards the injury prevention capacity, activities will be supported to increase the use which public health bodies can make of other Community policies for injury prevention.

An amount of 14 MECU for 5 years will be proposed for the actions under the programme between 1999 and 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/98 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

The directive explicitly does not apply to advertising at sales outlets, presentation or the indication of prices. The Member States may therefore lay down their own rules on these aspects. Does this apply only to tobacco products themselves or - especially - to non-tobacco products with the same brand name?

Similarly, the directive does not apply to tobacco advertising in third-country publications.

1. Does this mean that the Member States are free to permit such advertising or to prohibit it and so to erect new trade barriers?

2. Does this arrangement also apply to the advertising of non-tobacco products?

How consistent with the provisions of Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty is the right granted in the directive to the Member States to lay down stricter requirements?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0856/98, E-0857/98, E-0858/98, E-0859/98, E-0860/98, E-0861/98 and E-0862/98 (13/14 July 1998)

As the Honourable Member is aware, following a detailed debate in second reading on 13 May 1998, the European Parliament approved the Council's common position on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products without making any amendments to it. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

With particular reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, it should be emphasized that, when discussing the Commission proposal, the Council took great pains to produce a text which took into account both the efficient operation of the internal market and the requirements of ensuring a high level of health protection.

The reasoning which guided the Council's work on the proposal for a Directive was explained in detail in the recitals and in the statement of reasons which were sent to the European Parliament before its second reading. It will be for the Member States to adopt appropriate provisions to ensure that the Directive is so implemented as to enable the desired objectives to be attained.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to ensure application of the measures adopted by the Institutions pursuant to the Treaty and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them and to ensure that they comply with the Treaty.