ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Emissions of nitrogen oxides from aircraft

With reference to the proposal for a Council directive on the limitation of the emission of oxides of nitrogen from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes (COM(97) 629 final - 97/0349 SYN)(1), the legal basis of which is Article 84, could the Commission include a reference to Article 130s? In addition, a more extensive reference, in the preamble to the directive, to interpretation in conjunction with Directive 92/14/EEC(2) (limitation of aircraft noise emissions) would be useful.

Would the Commission make it clear in the preamble to the directive that the text thereof also applies to the countries of the European Economic Area and to the countries applying for membership of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The Commission believes that Article 84 (2) is the appropriate legal basis for the proposed directive on the limitation of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes because of the impact on access to the market for air transport services of the measure.

The Commission does not believe that a reference in the preamble to any interrelation between Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International civil Aviation, second edition (1988)(3) and the NOX proposal for interpretation purposes would be useful.

Once formally adopted this measure will become part of the "acquis" with the resulting obligations for countries applying for membership of the European Union.

(1) OJ L 108, 7.4.1998, p. 14.

(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Denied-boarding compensation system

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (COM(98) 0041 final - 98/022 SYN)(1), Article 2(a) should be redrafted so as to specify that passengers must present themselves for check-in at least 30 minutes before the departure time or at an earlier time where this has been notified to passengers in advance in writing by the airline or its agent. "Present themselves for check-in" should be understood as meaning joining the queue for check-in.

Can the Commission put forward proposals for compensation where flights are cancelled for commercial reasons?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 1999)

In its amended proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a Denied-Boarding Compensation system in air transport(2), the Commission has already suggested amendment of the definition in article 2(a) concerning check-in arrangements.

In the view of the Commission, passengers should present themselves for check-in at the time indicated to them in advance in writing and, if no time is indicated, not later than 30 minutes before the published departure time. This would allow for the flexibility of having both shorter and longer check-in time than the regular 30 minutes. The Commission also proposes that the airline shall be responsible for identifying those passengers still in the queue at the time of closing the check-in for a flight.

In the same amended proposal the Commission has also accepted the proposition made by the Parliament to include "flights cancelled for commercial reasons" in article 2(d).

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18.

(2) OJ C 351, 18.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3937/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Immediate prospects for the long-term nuclear fusion project

The US Department of Energy's decision to withdraw its researchers from foreign centres involved in the current ITER project presents the other partners - the EU, Japan and Russia - with difficult decisions.

According to information published recently, Europe has decided to continue for a few years without increasing its funding.

Furthermore, the loss of confidence in the long-term viability of the tokamak option (ITER) is renewing interest in other options such as stellarator-type reactors.

Can the Council say what its intentions are in this area and what the Japanese and Russian positions are? Also, can it examine the EU's budget line earmarked for this purpose for the duration of the Fifth Framework Programme? Finally, does it consider that the justification for this line can remain unchanged following the US decision?

Reply

(9 March 1999)

1. On 30 June 1998, the European Atomic Energy Community approved the extension of the ITER-EDA(1) agreement for three years (22 July 1998 to 21 July 2001)(2). The three-year extension was also approved by two of its partners to the agreement, Russia (on 16 June 1998) and Japan (on 14 July 1998).

On 22 September 1998, the United States (the fourth ITER partner) approved an extension of the agreement for one year only (22 July 1998 to 21 July 1999) on the understanding that during that period it would evaluate the prospects for its future participation(3).

2. On 22 December 1998, the Council adopted the Fifth Euratom Framework Programme for research and training activities (1998-2002), including a financial reference amount of ECU 1 260 million of which 788 million for thermonuclear fusion (in the Fourth Framework Programme the amount for fusion was ECU 840 million).

The Council also reached agreement on the two research and training programmes; in particular, that research on thermonuclear fusion should be carried out only by means of indirect actions. The objective of the key action on fusion remains, as in the past, to develop the capacity to construct and operate an experimental reactor (the "next step"), without prejudice to the decision to be taken concerning such construction. Whilst magnetic confinement, including tokamak, spherical tokamak, stellarator and reversed field pinch, will constitute the main line of activity, coordination of national efforts in inertial confinement and alternative concepts will be pursued in the context of a keep-in-touch activity.

3. The Council does not expect the priorities of the fusion programme to change during the lifetime of the Fifth Framework Programme. However, the programme will be kept under regular review. In particular, should there be a change regarding the participation of one of the ITER partners, the Council will reassess the situation.

(1) Engineering design activities for the international thermonuclear experimental reactor.

(2) OJ L 335, 10.12.1998, p. 61.

(3) OJ L 335, 10.12.1998, p. 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: Nuclear power plant in Ignalina, Lithuania

1. Is the Commission aware that in November the Lithuanian Parliament will discuss and adopt the National Energy Strategy, which may well recommend the rechannelling of the reactors in the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania, a measure which would contravene the Nuclear Safety Account Agreement and Agenda 2000? What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that the plant is not rechannelled?

2. Will the Commission make any pre-accession funds allocated to Lithuania conditional upon the closure of Ignalina?

3. Does not the Commission believe that the recent contracts signed by the Lithuanian energy sector for the export of 6 TWh electricity every year for the next 10 years - nearly the total amount generated by one reactor at the Ignalina NPP - will discourage the Lithuanian authorities from closing the reactors?

4. What measures will the Commission take, should the Lithuanian Government begin rechannelling the Ignalina reactors?

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

(15 January 1999)

The Commission is aware of the commitment by the Lithuanian government to submit a national energy strategy to the Parliament before the end of 1998 and is closely following this issue.

In coordination with international financial institutions, the Commission has repeatedly urged the Lithuanian government to respect the commitments under the nuclear safety account (NSA) agreement with the European bank for reconstruction and development. In the NSA the Lithuanian authorities undertake a commitment not to rechannel the units of the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP). In its opinion on Lithuania's application for Community membership, in the accession partnership, and in the regular report of 4 November 1998, the Commission has identified this as a priority area for action. The Commission has also expressed its concern about the energy export policy of Lithuania.

The Commission has indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Lithuanian government in the preparation of a comprehensive energy strategy. This should include consideration of the consequences resulting from the closure of the plant. Provided Lithuania commits itself to an acceptable closure timetable, support financing can be made available from the Community budget. Any future Phare funds for the Lithuanian energy sector will be conditional upon the adoption of a national energy strategy in line with the NSA agreement, confirmation of the commitment not to rechannel and the adoption of a realistic closure timetable.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Basing limit values on children - Assessment of impact on children - Children's ecological rights

Limit values laid down in the various European Union directives on the environment are based exclusively on the build of an adult. Because of their size and the fact that their bodies are not fully grown, children often react very sensitively to environmental pollution with illnesses such as allergies, bronchitis or psychosomatic illnesses. Up to now the special constitution of children has not been taken into account in calculating limit values.

Does the Commission plan to base the calculation of limit values on children in future? If not, why not? How does the Commission intend to deal with the problem?

Is the state of health of children in the case of high ozone levels being taken into account in the ozone directive currently being drawn up and will the limit value for ozone be lowered?

Does the Commission believe that the environmental impact assessment for major projects should be accompanied as soon as possible by an assessment of their impact on children? If so, how does the Commission envisage achieving this? How should a directive on the assessment of impact on children be transposed?

Might the Commission envisage taking a legislative initiative with regard to limit values and the assessment of impact on children in the case of major projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1998)

While the Honourable Member is right in saying that children are much more sensitive to environmental contamination, it is incorrect to say, that children are not taken into account when setting standards for environmental directives. As an example, the proposed revision of the Drinking water directive(1) has as scientific basis the latest guidelines recommended by the World health organisation (WHO). In these guidelines children are not only taken into account wherever there is appropriate scientific information, but also they are used as a reference in many cases on the basis that if a limit value is protective for children it should also be protective for adults.

In deriving new thresholds for ozone, the Commission also draws upon the expertise of the WHO. The latest guidelines have been used as a basis for setting a long-term objective and target value for the protection of human health as part of the proposal for an ozone daughter directive. In its guidelines WHO recognises that children represent a particularly sensitive group of the population.

This view is also clearly reflected in a position paper on ozone produced by a working group of experts from Member States, non governmental organisations (NGOs), the WHO and other relevant institutions to support the Commission in the development process of that legislation. Therefore, the requirement of ensuring health protection of children as a sensitive sector of the population is fully taken into account.

(1) COM(97) 49 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2899/98

by Irini Lambraki (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Serious problems faced by citrus fruit producers in Chios

The specific problems faced by the European Union's island regions, particularly the Aegean Islands, are well known and indeed provision is made for specific aid measures under the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Agriculture is hardest hit by these problems, because the small size of farms, together with the high cost of transport, result in the final cost of products being uncompetitive.

The citrus fruit producers agricultural cooperative in Chios is the largest producers' association in the Aegean region. Nevertheless, it is facing serious problems because the COM in citrus fruits applies across the board to all EU regions without taking into account the specific problems of island regions.

This policy will lead to the gradual abandonment of citrus fruit production in Chios, with serious repercussions for the socio-economic life of the island, and will lead to depopulation of the traditional settlement of Kambos, which is a major centre for the production of this crop.

Will the Commission say:

- what possibilities are available under existing legislation to assist these producers?

- what measures it intends to take in the immediate future to tackle this serious problem as part of the new policy to assist island regions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Council Regulation (EEC) 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean Islands concerning certain agricultural products(1) provides for specific measures to support local products and derogations from structural measures to take account of the special socio-economic problems affecting the Islands.

Furthermore, the common organisation of the market in fresh fruit and vegetables includes a number of measures which could be applied to citrus fruit production in the Aegean Islands. The most important of these is the creation by producer organisations of operational funds to finance operational programmes. Such funds receive Community financial assistance and may be used to finance measures designed to overcome problems faced by the producer organisations concerned.

(1) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3979/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Take-up in Greece of "Delors package" resources

In her answer of 4 December 1997 to my Written Question No E-3209/97(1), Commissioner Wulf-Mathies informs me that 37,87 % of the appropriations committed to Greece under the Community Support Framework for 1994-1999 (the "Delors II package") have been taken up.

Can the Commission say what the current total take-up of appropriations under the "Delors package" is and what the take-up rates are by region and sector (education, health, energy, infrastructure, etc.) in Greece?

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

(28 January 1999)

As at 1 December 1998 take-up of Structural Fund resources allocated to the Greek Community support framework was very satisfactory, for commitments being 80 % and for payments 56,6 % of the amounts set for the whole period 1994-1999.

Member States have 1999 for entering into commitments and 1999, 2000 and 2001 for proceeding to payment.

A table showing the state of execution of all operational programmes in the CSF is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4068/98

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Trade

In October 1998 the Czech Republic announced that it was taking unilateral measures against EU pigmeat exports and raising customs duties from the then current rate of 12 % to some 40,9 %. Hungary and Poland apparently intend to follow suit.

Could the Commission say what steps it will take against the above countries, which, through their unilateral action, have violated or are about to violate the Europe Agreements and may harm a sector of immense socio-economic importance for the EU in general and Spain in particular?

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

(16 February 1999)

The Commission is aware that the Czech Republic intended to increase import duties on Community pigmeat to counter the negative impact on the Czech market of imports, in particular those from the Community. The Commission had set refunds at a level designed to promote exports of pigmeat, primarily to Russia, in an attempt to solve the problems on the Community pigmeat market, but this also led to an increase in exports to the Czech Republic and other associated countries destabilising their pigmeat markets.

Other associated countries were planning similar measures. The Commission has had talks with the authorities of the countries in question with a view to ensuring that they continue to respect the provisions of the Europe Agreements. The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, as a result of these consultations, none of the countries in question have applied such measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4098/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: National concessions on taxation

Given that regional economic disparities in most Member States lie at a ratio of about 2:1, can the Commission confirm that national concessions on taxation, made as a regional policy incentive, are still acceptable within the single market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

Tax incentives for regional development must be appreciated from the double point of view of the legislation on State aid. The criteria for applying the rules on State aid as regards business taxation were recently set out in greater detail in a Commission communication published in the Official Journal(1). For the Commission to consider it compatible with the single market, State aid in the form of tax concessions for the economic development of certain regions must be in proportion to and targeted at the aims sought. These criteria are designed to contribute to a consistent approach as regards Community law and the single market.

Regional development tax incentives may also fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct adopted on 1 December 1997 to combat harmful tax competition within the Community. When assessing whether any particular measures are harmful, the Code of Conduct group set up within the Council must also consider whether the measures are in proportion to and targeted at the aims sought, as stipulated in paragraph G of the code.

(1) OJ C 384, 10.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the operational programme on industry

The Second Community Support Framework for Greece contains the operational programme on industry which seeks to promote a steady improvement in the competitiveness of undertakings and the mutually beneficial interaction of competitiveness and development; it has a total public budget endowment of ECU 1 188 million. This programme comprises the following subprogrammes: 1. Infrastructures; 2. Promotion of private investment; 3. Modernization of undertakings; 4. Small and medium-sized undertakings; 5. Human resources; and 6. Implementation of the programme.

Given that the subprogrammes have been running since 1994, will the Commission say:

1. What is the state of progress and take-up rate of funding for each of the subprogrammes?

2. What is the take-up rate specifically for: a) subprogramme 1, measure 1.1, measure 1.2 - action 1.2.2, measure 1.4 and 1.5; b) subprogramme 3, measure 3.3; and c) subprogramme 4, measure 4.2?

3. Where there have been delays in take-up, what are the chief causes of these delays?

4. In the recent review of the Second CSF for Greece, were any changes made to the above programme and, if so, what was the scale of these changes and which actions were affected?

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

(28 January 1999)

On 1 December 1998, out of the overall Community contribution for the "industry" operational programme in the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) for the period 1994-99 76 % had been committed and 55 % paid out.

At the end of September 1998 the national funding committed for each subprogramme was 74 % for subprogramme 1 (infrastructure), 80 % for subprogramme 2 (private investment), 75 % for subprogramme 3 (modernisation of undertakings), 80 % for subprogramme 4 (small and medium-sized enterprises), 65 % for subprogramme 5 (human resources) and 75 % for subprogramme 6 (implementation), with an average 78,8 % committed for the programme as a whole.

It is hoped that all national funding for the programme will have been committed by the end of 1998, except for the human resources subprogramme where national funding is to be committed during 1999.

The monitoring committee for the programme will meet in March to incorporate the latest decisions by the CSF committee. Transfers between subprogrammes and measures cannot be ruled out but should not affect the key aims, namely the modernisation of undertakings and of industrial infrastructure, quality policy and strengthening the fabric of small and medium-sized enterprises. New environment and equal opportunities measures are in preparation.