ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3818/97 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Loss of jobs at Kodak

The multinational company Kodak has just announced that 10 000 jobs will be lost within the company.

Can the Commission indicate what steps it is taking to ensure that the Directive on worker information is being and will be respected by Kodak? Does the Commission know the reasons behind Kodak's decision?

Articles in the press suggest that Japan would not be very open to trade in this sector and would protect its own market. Can the Commission clarify the exact situation in this respect and state whether it agrees with Kodak's approach?

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

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has yet to receive any complaints concerning checks to ensure that the restructuring announced by the Kodak Group complies with the applicable Community law.

The Community directives which may be applicable in this matter are Directive 75/129/EEC, as revised by Council Directive 92/56/EC of 24 June 1992 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies ((OJ L 245, 26.8.1992. )), and Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )). These Directives have been transposed in the Member States. It is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities to ensure compliance with the national provisions transposing the two Directives concerned.

As far as the question of access to the Japanese market for film and photographic paper products is concerned, the Commission would refer to the answer that it gave to the oral question from Mr Killilea (H-991/97) during Question Time at the January 1998 part-session of Parliament, which explains the position adopted with regard to the action taken by the United States of America in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The findings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) panel have yet to be published, but the panel appears to have concluded that the difficulties encountered by non-Japanese firms in gaining access to the Japanese market in photographic products do not stem from actions that can be directly ascribed to the Japanese Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3939/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 December 1997)

Subject: Money laundering

According to reports - which have now reached the Greek Parliament - a number of banks are engaging in the conversion of funds derived from criminal activities (money laundering), thereby infringing Directive 91/308/EEC ((OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.)) which has already been transposed into Greek legislation under Law 2331, (Official Gazette 173, 24.8.1995).

27 allegations of this nature must now be considered by the parliamentary committee for the monitoring of commercial practices and transactions. The banks themselves admit that they are unable to monitor transactions, proof of the difficulties in implementing Directive 91/308/EEC.

In answer to my previous question ((Written question E-0823/96, OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 87.)) Mr Monti indicated on 13 May 1996 that 'were it (the Commission) to have any doubts as to its conformity (that of Greek legislation) with the directive it would follow the standard procedures'.

In view of the above:

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation and what view does it take of it?

2. What measures will the Commission take to ensure more effective enforcement of the directive?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

The Commission has no knowledge of the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member nor of the difficulties apparently being encountered by the banking sector. The Commission therefore intends to write to the Greek authorities to ask for full information on this matter.

At the same time the Commission would request the Honourable Member himself to supply to the Commission any detailed information that is in his possession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/97 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Warning system for dangerous products

Within the European Union there is a system for the exchange of information on dangerous products, RAPEX. Unfortunately there is no obligation to report dangerous products discovered on the market, nor their names. Does the Commission regard this as a satisfactory situation for consumers? If not, what does it contemplate doing to improve the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1998)

The Community system for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products (RAPEX), set up by Council Decision 84/133/EEC and now integrated into Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety ((OJ 228, 11.8.1992. )), is a general and horizontal early warning and monitoring system designed to help Member States in handling urgent situations.

Its essential aim is to provide information on all available details of the product, the danger involved, and the measures decided by the notifying Member State, to public authorities responsible for the protection of their citizens in order to allow them to take immediate and appropriate action when a grave and immediate risk arising from a consumer product has been detected by one of them.

The measures adopted and notified through the system often consist in the publication of warnings or in other arrangements to ensure that those who might be exposed to a risk from a product are informed in good time of such a risk. The measures adopted or decided by Member States against a dangerous product are administrative decisions which normally are published also at the national level.

Nevertheless, the Commission agrees that the system needs to be revised in order to improve its efficiency and to introduce more transparency in its functioning. This is one of the elements to be considered when defining the proposals for the modification of Directive 92/59/EEC that the Commission will present in the second half of next year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) and Giacomo Santini (UPE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Violation of human rights in Greece

Following a road accident while on holiday in Crete a young Italian, Valeria Zagato, was arrested and unlawfully subjected to a period of preventive imprisonment. She was then sentenced during a trial conducted exclusively in Greek that did not guarantee minimum defence or civil rights solely because she was a foreigner.

Did Greece not have to respect human rights as early as 1981 when it acceded to the European Community?

Will the Commission investigate whether there was any abuse of power or cover-up by the Greek authorities in the Zagato case simply because she was not a Greek citizen?

If it is established that human rights were violated will the Commission summon Greece to appear before the competent authorities?

What will the Commission do to prevent such episodes which are outrageous and denigrating for the whole European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 January 1998)

The Commission attaches great importance to the respect for human rights. It has competence in this area insofar as Community law is concerned.

In relation to the facts reported by the Honourable Member, it remains a matter of national competence for each Member State to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms through their internal systems and through the mechanisms provided by the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Insofar as co-operation between the judicial systems of Member States is concerned, judicial co-operation in criminal matters is of course a matter of common interest under Article K.1(7) of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. Article K.2 specifically requires that such co-operation must be dealt with in compliance with the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission is fully associated with this work but in accordance with Article K.3 does not have a right of initiative. Neither, of course, does it have a power to police compliance with respect for human rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3998/97 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Delay in payments under the PACTE programme

The Commission answered my last question (H-0718/97) ((Debates of the European Parliament (November 1997). )) by reassuring me that it had learned from its mistakes and that problems will be solved in the future. Unfortunately, current problems have still not been solved, and I therefore feel obliged to raise once again the issue of the serious maladministration of the PACTE-programme that has resulted in serious delays in payments being made to the contractors.

1. Is the Commission aware of the financial impact of long delays in payments to subcontractors? In the case of a specific project dating from 1995, the subcontractor has been waiting for 22 months. Does the Commission find it acceptable that unpaid accounts should lead to professional and personal bankruptcy?

2. What specific measures is the Commission prepared to take to ensure the proper administration of the PACTE Office in Strasbourg and of the Commission's internal administration of the programme - and to ensure that the subcontractors will be payed?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

The Commission paid the final instalments of the Community contribution to the office administering this programme in February 1997 and in March 1997 reminded the PACTE office in Strasbourg of the urgent need to pay the balances due for these projects.

After discovering irregularities committed by certain project leaders, the office carried out an audit of expenditure in order to verify that the payment claims submitted accurately reflected expenditure incurred.

Project leaders should therefore contact the PACTE office to find out the situation as regards final payment for their project.

The Commission is aware of the problems caused by delegated financial management and does not therefore plan to use this method of financing for such operations in future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4026/97 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Agenda 2000

The Commission proposes three new Community Initiatives in Agenda 2000. Will these three initiatives be referred to in the framework regulation? Furthermore, while the Commission has referred to mainstreaming the experiences of the Community Initiatives into the regional Objectives there are clearly inconsistencies in the Commission's approach. Whilst rural areas will benefit from Objective 2 and Leader, there are no grass roots Community initiatives to complement the other strands of Objective 2. Will the Commission give further consideration to extending the best practice of Leader into a fourth Initiative for urban and industrial areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1998)

With a view to strengthening the effectiveness, public profile and innovative character of the future Community Initiatives, the Commission has indeed stated in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) that they will concentrate on three topics only: cross-border, trans-national and inter-regional cooperation; rural development; and human resources in the context of equal opportunities. The Commission is also looking at the advisability of explicitly including these Initiatives in the new Regulations on the Structural Funds that are currently in preparation.

The concentration on a few topics should make it possible to reflect more closely the Community interest in cooperation and innovation to promote the harmonious development of the Community territory, to encourage new approaches within rural society in order to meet the proposed profound reform of the common agricultural policy, and to better mobilise human resources, the latter aim in the context of employment in the Community and access to the labour market.

The fact that the Commission is not proposing an initiative specifically for the areas affected by the decline of industry does not mean that such areas have less priority. Both Objective 1 (regions lagging behind in their development which are also affected by difficulties in the production system and in employment) and Objective 2 (economic and social conversion of areas undergoing economic transformation, including industry and services and depressed rural and urban areas) as well as Objective 3 (development of human resources in other areas) and the new Community Initiatives as proposed will be instruments for implementing projects in industrial and urban areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2868/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Special derogation for tax-free sales

The Commission is, no doubt, aware that the sale of tax-free goods within the EU will cease with effect from 1 January 1999 pursuant to Council Directive 92/12/EEC ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1. )), thereby preventing unfair competition and speeding up creation of the internal market.

Is the Commission aware that derogations have been made to this scheme and that the new directive on tax-free goods will not apply to the following territories: Heligoland and Büsingen (Germany); the Canary islands and the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla (Spain); Athos (Greece); Livigno, Camione d'Itala and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano (Italy); Gibraltar (United Kingdom); and the Åland Islands (Finland)?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for these derogations, since at no point are they clearly set out in the acts of accession?

Does the Commission not feel that these derogations are an infringement of EU legislation in this field, that they involve unfair competition, and that they might give rise to a shift in flows of transport and goods, and even fraud?

If so, does the Commission intend to put an end to these derogations from the general scheme?

If not, which derogations can it change and which ones can it not change? Why not?

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

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. )) (Article 28) and Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ((OJ 145, 13.6.1977. )), as amended (Article 28K), intra-Community duty-free sales will end by 30 June 1999.

This decision only applies with regard to intra-Community travel. It does not apply to travel to and from territories in which the above mentioned directives are not applicable as they are considerered, for fiscal purposes, to be third countries. There is no obligation, under Community law, to apply Community VAT or excise in these territories.

The exceptions, which are contained in the relevant Acts of Accession, were agreed by the Council for a number of different reasons. Some territories are covered by international agreements prior to the EC Treaty and others had autonomy to decide on their indirect tax matters. Exchanges of goods with these territories are, and will continue to be subject to the same control as exports and imports from third countries in order to minimize the risk of fraud.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4019/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Funding of research into allergies

According to recent estimates, one third of Europe's population suffers from some kind of allergy. Will the Commission say how it intends to adapt the planned fifth research and development framework programme to secure financial support for research into allergies in Europe, in view of the fact that the cost of these allergies has been estimated at ECU 30 billion per year.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (25 February 1998)

Within the 5th framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) proposal, as modified by the Commission on 14 January 1998 after the first reading by the Parliament ((COM(98) 8. )), the scientific and technical objectives of the first activity 'Improving the quality of life and the management of living resources' include, in the key action 'Health, food and environmental factors', the development of tests to detect and process to eliminate toxic agents, which includes also allergic agents, as well as research into allergies related or influenced by the environment, and into their treatment and prevention.

Community research activities are intended to be complemented by a future public health action programme on pollution-related diseases that will place emphasis on respiratory diseases and allergies. The Commission proposal is at present negotiated in the Parliament and Council ((OJ C 214, 16.7.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Austria

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Austria requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3695/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations for Hungary

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

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1998)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member concerning the Phare programme in Hungary in 1997 as follows.

1. The proposed country operational programme (COP) 1997 (65 MECU) was adopted at the Phare management committee meeting of 30 October 1997. The table reflects the proposed overall division of funds for the COP 1997:

>TABLE>

The total Phare support for Hungary in 1997 includes also 7 MECU for Tempus and 2.962 MECU for the participation of Hungary in three Community programmes which have been agreed in separate financing memoranda. Additionally, complementary support of 15 MECU is to provided outside the national Phare allocation, specifically to upgrade the corridor 4 rail track section with Slovenia.

2. Under the cross border cooperation programmes (CBC) 14 MECU have been allocated for cooperation with Austria in 1997. The allocation of funds is as follows:

>TABLE>

The overall Phare budget for Hungary committed in 1997 is 104 MECU.