ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2951/97 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: The cultivation and use of hemp in Finland

The EU grants financial aid for the traditional cultivation of industrial hemp. Unfortunately, there are no arrangements for making use of the harvested hemp and, at least in Finland's case, there are no processing firms requiring hemp as a raw material and no export markets.

Is the Commission aware that hemp is being grown in Finland without there being any market for it? What steps will it take to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 October 1997)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp ((OJ L 146, 4.7.1970. )), aid per hectare is granted in the Community for hemp grown from seed of varieties with an intoxicating substance (tetrahydrocannabinol) content of no more than 0.3%. The area must have been fully sown and harvested and normal cultivation work carried out. There are no requirements as to storage, processing or exportation of the harvested hemp.

The area sown to hemp in Finland although increasing is very low: 2 hectares in 1996 and 74 (provisional figure) in 1997. The quantities yielded by such small areas are obviously an inadequate incentive to investment in processing facilities in Finland. Undertakings in the rest of the Community already have adequate raw material supplies and export outlets are very limited.

On 20 January 1997 the Commission undertook to the Council to propose suitable measures for hemp as soon as possible. When the agricultural prices for 1997/98 were set the Council accepted the Commission's proposal that the aid be reduced by 7.5% in order to diminish the effect it has had of increasing areas grown.

The Commission continues to reflect on what would be the most appropriate measures for the sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3057/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Tobacco reform

The Commission's report to the Council on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (COM(96) 554 final) analyses two basic options for the future of the Community tobacco sector, before going on to conclude that aid for tobacco growing should not be abolished in the medium term but should be generally overhauled. The proposed reforms provide for a variable premium to encourage the production of better quality tobacco (with lower tar content) and the introduction of a scheme for buying back quotas which will enable tobacco growers to cease production, thereby reducing the size of the overall Community quota.

While recognising the obvious contradiction between pursuing a Community policy to reduce tobacco consumption and at the same time supporting the production of raw tobacco, the report points out that the abolition of aid for tobacco growers would result in an end to raw tobacco production in the European Union with serious consequences for the 200 000 jobs in the production and processing sectors (170 000 and 30 000 jobs respectively). In addition, the Community finances 80% of the income of European tobacco growers, of whom there are 70 000 in Greece (52%) and almost 40 000 in Italy.

Will the Commission ensure that any measures to end tobacco growing are accompanied by precise details of what other crops could be grown in tobacco- growing areas, or will it create the conditions necessary for non-agricultural activities to flourish as part of a balanced and gradual development of rural areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

With regard to the Honourable Member's question on the alternatives open to producers who give up growing tobacco, the Commission wishes to point out that it is only putting forward proposals for those who decide voluntarily to leave the sector because of the difficulties they encounter in following market trends. Hence, since it is not compulsory to leave the tobacco sector, it is not for the Commission to say exactly what choices individual producers should make.

However, to support those who voluntarily decided to abandon tobacco growing the Commission put forward proposals for accompanying measures in its report.

The accompanying measures should concentrate on the promotion of strategic plans for local development, directing producers to other activities. The plans should be drawn up at the closest possible level to the areas concerned. They should involve closely those directly concerned, in the first instance, the tobacco producer groups. The approach should be one of integrated development, as is currently the case under the development programmes financed by the Structural Funds for the benefit of Objective 1 and Objective 5(b) regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/97 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Damage to Portuguese fruit and vegetables caused by rain and hailstorms

The untimely recent torrential rains, coupled in many cases with violent hailstorms, have devastated fruit and vegetable crops in Portugal.

According to some estimates, approximately 60% of the potato crop has been affected, especially in parts of the Beira Litoral, Ribatejo (Chamusca), Setúbal, and Trás-os-Montes regions. The cherry and tomato crops in, respectively, Beira Interior and several other areas have also been damaged.

Portuguese agricultural insurance apparently does not cover bad weather of this particular sort. Furthermore, the vast majority of the farmers concerned, who work on family farms or holdings nearly as small, have scant capital resources and, as the Commission is well aware, receive little or no Community support.

Funds are available in the Community budget to cope with the kind of severe weather conditions which have occurred. However, the small farmers now in difficulty will not be able to obtain them unless the Portuguese Government elects to inform the Commission and submit the necessary request/application.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. What amounts are earmarked to make good the losses sustained when fruit and vegetable crops in Member States have been almost completely destroyed by bad weather? Are the sums granted in the form of non-returnable payments and/or loans with interest-rate subsidies?

2. Has the Portuguese Government already informed the Commission about what has happened to fruit and vegetable crops in Portugal? Has it already submitted the necessary requests for aid? If so, how has the Commission responded?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1997)

The Commission does not finance losses of agricultural production caused by bad weather. However, Article 5(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 laying down implementing provisions for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Section (EAGGF) - Guidance Section, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )), states that the EAGGF Guidance Section may provide financial assistance to restore agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters.

With regard to emergency aid to victims of disasters within the Community, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the 1997 budget provided no appropriations for the relevant budget item (B4-3400) which would allow immediate action to be take to help the families in distress. The Commission would also point out that this Community measure was never designed to compensate the victims of damage caused by disasters but rather to demonstrate Community solidarity with the population affected.

The Portuguese authorities have not notified the Commission of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Financial assistance to farmers

Can the Commission please indicate what financial assistance is available to farmers who find themselves in financial difficulties following the loss of the majority of the soft fruit crop due to unseasonable and unexpected frosts?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 September 1997)

According to Article 5(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) guidance section ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. )), farmers in regions falling under objectives 1 and 5b of the structural funds who suffered from natural disaster can receive financial aid in the framework of the respective regional operational programmes.

This aid can only be used for restructuring the production potential. Possible compensation of income losses as a result of natural disaster falls into the responsibility of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/97 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Crédit Lyonnais

According to The Economist (July 5 1997), 'Important details of the last rescue sanctioned by Brussels, back in 1995, were never respected'.

Is this allegation correct? If so, what specific initiatives did the Commission undertake to have Crédit Lyonnais comply with the 1995 Commission decisions?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

In 1995, the Commission approved the restructuring aid to Crédit Lyonnais amounting to FF 45 billion (MECU 6,800). The particularly complex aid scheme included a capital injection by the French State and the hiving-off of FF 135 billion (MECU 20,400) of Crédit Lyonnais' assets into a special vehicle covered by the state guarantee. The Commission gave its approval subject to a set of conditions to be fulfilled by the French authorities ((OJ L 308, 21.12.1995. )). These conditions included the full application and implementation of the restructuring plan submitted to the Commission, the reduction, by the end of 1998, of the Crédit Lyonnais commercial presence outside France to an extent equal to 35% of the bank's presence abroad at the end of 1994, the issuing of a zero coupon loan by Crédit Lyonnais to the benefit of EPFR (Etablissement public de financement et de restructuration) and some conditions on the relations between Crédit Lyonnais and the vehicle which took over the assets hived-off from Crédit Lyonnais.

In September 1996 the French authorities notified a new emergency rescue package to Crédit Lyonnais of about FF 4 billion (MECU 605). The Commission decided ((OJ C 390, 24.12.1996. )) to approve the rescue aid and to open a formal investigation on any further aid that could be needed by Crédit Lyonnais, as well as to assess whether the previous 1995 Commission decision was fully respected (including the infringement of the zero coupon issuing obligation). This investigation has not led to a final decision yet.

At this stage the Commission is not aware of any infringement other than the non-issuing of the zero coupon.

In the framework of the current investigation, the Commission has decided to appoint a leading investment bank to advise it in the assessment of the new Crédit Lyonnais restructuring plan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3097/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Olympic Games and Directive 85/337

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the contents of the package for the Olympic Games submitted by Greece and the projects included therein? Have any environmental impact studies (Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. ))) been submitted, and can it guarantee that it will continue the relevant investments and ensure that Community legislation is complied with well before work on the projects commences?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

There is no Community competence over the Olympic games so the Greek authorities have not submitted a file to the Commission. With respect to Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, there is always an obligation for its correct implementation by Member States irrespective of the context in which projects are carried out. The Commission will therefore continue to ensure the respect of the provisions of this Directive in case it would be applicable to Olympic games projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2702/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (28 July 1997)

Subject: Extremely low take-up of funds from the CSF for Greece for the region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace

According to reports in the Greek press, the take-up rate of funds under the CSF for the Greek region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is extremely low. To date, i.e. over three years since the CSF for Greece came into operation, the take-up rate for the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for Eastern Macedonia and Thrace -

total budget of some Drs 200 billion - is no more than 33%. In view of the fact that Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is one of the most isolated and least developed regions in Europe as well as in Greece (according to the Commission's first report on cohesion, it is among the 25 poorest regions in Europe), will the Commission say what stage has been reached exactly in the implementation of the ROP for Eastern Macedonia and Thrace? What are the reasons for the long delays and what precise measures does it intend to take in cooperation with the Greek authorities to step up the pace of implementation of the programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

The Commission confirms that the rate of absorption for the 1994-1999 operational programme for Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is presently 33%. However, the rate of absorption is only one of many indicators of the progress of an operational programme, and does not reflect its implementation quality. In the case of the programme for Eastern Macedonia and Thrace the Commission has observed that both the quality of implementation and the rate of absorption are constantly improving.

In order to improve the implementation of the Community support framework (CSF) as a whole, the Greek government has promoted in the field of public works a number of legislative acts and organizational adjustments modernizing relevant mechanisms and procedures and making them more effective. Furthermore, the Greek authorities and the Commission intend to make soon, where necessary, in the framework of the mid-term review of the CSF, programme adjustments in order further to promote their prompt and effective implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3290/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: OECD negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Agreement (MIA)

In the Council guidelines for the OECD negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Agreement (MIA) of 27 November 1995 it is stated that 'During the negotiations it has to be ensured that interested non-OECD countries are informed and consulted'.

Have consultations taken place between the Commission and the ACP countries on the implications and effects of the MIA on these countries? What stage have the negotiations on the MIA reached in the OECD?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

The African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are participating in a comprehensive exercise discussing the effects of globalisation on the flow of investment, as well as possible rules for these flows in the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) and worldwide. In recent months the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD) as well as the World trade organisation (WTO) have established working groups dealing with these issues. The Commission and the Community play a constructive and essential role in these working groups. In addition, the Commission has actively participated in OECD activities to inform non-OECD countries about the multilateral investment agreement (MIA) negotiations.

Overall, the negotiations have made good progress, so that the target date of May 1998 agreed by OECD ministers for conclusion of the negotiations seems achievable. However, a number of important political questions have not been settled yet, for example the application of the MIA to all levels of government, the scope of the general exceptions as well as the avoidance of secondary investment boycotts (for example, the United States Helms Burton Act).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/97 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Compliance of Italian Decree DL 31/12/1996 No 669 with EU law

Assuming that Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence ((OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26. )), which aims to place all EU citizens on an equal footing, applies in this case would the Commission say whether Article 29 of DL 31/12/1996 No 669 complies with EU law?

Does Article 29 place at a disadvantage citizens from other EU Member States resident in Italy, since vehicles registered abroad before 1 January 1987 which they have brought with them and licensed in Italy are not covered by the decree?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1997)

Under Article 29 of Decree Law No 669 of 31 December 1996 on assistance for the purchase of new motor vehicles in exchange for the scrapping of similar used goods ((Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 305 of 31 December 1996. )), the assistance is available only if the vehicle to be scrapped was first registered before 1 January 1987. This condition does not seem contrary to Community law.

Furthermore, the provision in question does not seem to require the used vehicle to be registered in Italy. However, should the Honourable Member have any knowledge of specific cases of discrimination based on the Member State in which a used vehicle is registered, the Commission would like to be informed so that it can verify whether or not there has been a breach of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3143/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (30 September 1997)

Subject: The Commission's monitoring system for checks on nuclear fissile materials

At present the Commission is developing a new computer based monitoring system to check fissile materials movements (safeguards). The computer technology previously used for this purpose is to be replaced by a new technical installation at Euratom.

1. What are the exact reasons which led the Commission to exchange the previously used computer technology for a new system?

2. When did the Commission start developing the new monitoring programme, what are the exact costs involved for this development process and for the induction and training of staff to use this system?

3. When precisely will the new system be available?

4. Which specific improvements and advantages - by comparison with the previously used system - were decisive in making the Commission decide to obtain a new system?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (29 octobre 1997)

1. The reasons for developing and introducing a new computerised safeguards information system are the same as those for introducing modern computer technology, including enhancement of the effectiveness and efficiency of work, flexibility of the computer applications and also to ensure that certain programming conventions used in the past would not create problems on 1 January 2000.

2. The development of the new safeguards information system started in 1992, the total cost of development amounts to 0.5 MECU plus 8 man years for programming and training. The operation costs are estimated at 0.1 - 0.2 MECU per year and this compares favourably with the annual rental cost of the old system of some 0.4 MECU. The Commission expects a reduction of about 63% for the specific cost per unit of information processed.

3. Relevant modules of the new system have been in operation since 1 October 1997.

4. The specific improvements and advantages of the new system in comparison to the systems used so far are open architecture, standard software, transportability of applications, enhanced security, enhanced integrity and stability of the database, flexibility for the addition of new applications and last but not least, integration of all types of safeguards information - accountancy, inspections, instruments, methods, techniques and management information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Council (23 October 1997)

Subject: Amsterdam Treaty: Declaration on the quality of the drafting of EU legislation

1. What action does the Council Secretariat propose to take to lay down guidelines on the quality of drafting of Community legislation, as it was invited to do by the European Council meeting in Amsterdam?

2. What appropriate organizational measures does the Council plan to take to ensure that the guidelines are applied?

3. Will its priorities include a review of staff training, and the allocation of specific responsibilities to staff in each section to monitor output for plain language?

4. When does the Council Secretariat expect to complete its initiatives on the quality of drafting of Community legislation, and will it produce a report for the Council and European Parliament on the outcome?

Answer (15 January 1998)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the Declaration on the quality of the drafting of EU legislation annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty, signed on 2 October 1997, concerns not only the Council. It calls upon all three Institutions involved in the procedure for adopting Community legislation, namely the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, to 'establish by common accord guidelines for improving the quality of the drafting of Community legislation and follow those guidelines when considering proposals for Community legislation or draft legislation'.

Once adopted, the common guidelines will, within the three Institutions involved, be the subject of 'the internal organizational measures they deem necessary to ensure that these guidelines are properly applied.'

It is too early at this stage to give an indication of the content of those guidelines, since work on this subject has, of course, not yet commenced.

The Council would point out that it has always attached great importance to the quality of the drafting of legislation. In particular, in June 1993 it adopted a Resolution on the quality of drafting of Community legislation ((OJ C 166, 17.6.1993, p. 1. )) following the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 which recommended that 'guidelines for the drafting of Community legislation should be agreed upon, containing criteria against which the quality of drafting of legislation would have to be checked' ((EC Bulletin 12-1992, p. 20, point I. 28. )).

The ten points of that Resolution cover the clear, simple and concise wording of provisions; internal consistency within the act; consistency with other acts; the structure of the act; a clear definition of rights and obligations; clarity regarding the date of entry into force and transitional provisions; the need for a preamble justifying the enacting terms, and types of presentation to be avoided (such as excessive cross references and references to other acts, provisions without legislative character or autonomous substantive provisions within an amending act).