ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4180/97 by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Preparation in the Commission of the interim report on the EU's northern dimension

The enlargement of the EU in 1995 to include the Nordic countries Sweden and Finland moved the Union's centre of gravity northwards. The decision on launching negotiations with the new candidate countries on membership and preparations for membership, together with the need to develop the EU's policy on Russia, further reinforces the significance of the northern dimension in the Union's policies.

The Presidency conclusions from the Luxembourg summit contain the following statement concerning the northern dimension: 'The European Council noted the Finnish proposal concerning a northern dimension for the policies of the Union and requests the Commission to submit an interim report on this subject at a forthcoming European Council meeting in 1998'. The importance of the northern dimension was also referred to in the report submitted by the Commission (at the instructions of Luxembourg) on regional cooperation.

I would therefore ask the Commissioner responsible what preparations the Commission has made to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the drafting of the interim report, and how it intends to link the northern dimension to the work of future European Councils.

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1998)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that the last and future enlargements of the Community, as well as the further development of the Community relations with Russia within the new framework created by the partnership and co-operation agreement, all contribute to enhancing the importance for the Community of the northern parts of Europe. These issues are already being addressed by a wide range of Community policies and Community instruments both internally and in relations with neighbours. The frameworks resulting from the Community agreements with each of its neighbours in the region, and the fora created by the Baltic and Barents regional co-operation initiatives, play an important role in this regard. Through regional policy and external assistance programmes, the Community supports the region's development. This will continue to be an important and integral part of the work being done in these existing frameworks. With this in mind, the Commission will prepare an interim report on this subject to the European Council.

Moreover, the European Conference, as stated by the European Council, will be a multilateral forum for political consultation, intended to address questions of general concern to the participants and to broaden and deepen their co-operation on foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs. It will also examine other areas of common concern, particularly economic matters and regional co-operation, the latter being of relevance to the issue raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3981/97 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Comparative analysis of national minimum wages in Europe

Could the European Commission inform me whether there is any regular survey or comparative analysis of national minimum wages in the European Union?

Has the European Commission honoured its commitment in its 1993 Opinion on an equitable wage in which it called for action to improve transparency with regards to wages?

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

The Commission opinion on an equitable wage ((COM(93) 288 final. )) considered that Member States should improve transparency of the labour market by a better collection and dissemination of comparable statistical information about wage structures.

On 8 January 1997 the Commission adopted a progress report on equitable wages ((COM(96) 698 final. )), according to which transparency in wage information remains a problem area for all Member States. The wage statistics widely available at Member State level are often too general and too out of date to aid transparency, and wage information generated by job vacancy information is derived from too narrow a base to be useful.

It was also found that data on the structure of earnings and changes in income differentials are not generally available on a Community wide basis. However, new information sources have been initiated by the Commission and should provide some useful indicators over the next few years.

As part of the ongoing commitment to improve transparency concerning wage rates, and following on from last year's progress report, a publication 'Minimum wages, 1997- A comparative study' will be available in March 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3931/97 by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission (4 December 1997)

Subject: Competition

Could the Commission inform me if the present situation in Ireland, where it is not possible to sell ready-made reading/magnifying glasses in pharmacists, is a restrictive practice under the competition articles of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1998)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to answer the question. The Honourable Member is invited to inform the Commission whether the situation which he describes is a result of Irish law or administrative provisions, or results from the actions of one or more suppliers refusing to sell glasses to pharmacists.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4212/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 26 October 1996 in the case of Elida Gibbs Limited (Case C-317/94)

This ECJ judgment appears to be frustrated by its non-application in Germany and its partial application in France and Greece.

Is there any rule in Germany which prohibits certain types of promotion scheme, such as the use of manufacturers' money-off coupons or manufacturers' cash-back offers? If so, what is the logic behind the prohibition and is such a prohibition acceptable in the Single Market?

If there is such a rule and it is not acceptable, what action has been taken by the European Commission, and under what provisions of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

There are very strict rules in Germany governing the granting of discounts and premiums.

The Zugabeverordnung (Order governing free gifts), which is dated March 1932, prohibits with very few exceptions the giving of any gift of whatever kind in connection with the sale of a good or service. The exceptions concern, for instance, packaging or gifts of insignificant value (of less than 50 pfennigs or so). The Rabattgesetz (Law on rebates), which dates from November 1933, prohibits discounts of more than 3%.

According to the information in the Commission's possession, the logic applied at the time by the legislature was twofold: to protect consumers by encouraging them to base their buying decisions on the intrinsic qualities of the product or service and on its price, and to ensure fair trading by preventing practices deemed likely to distort competition. In the 1920s premiums were offered particularly by large stores in Germany and, following the depression years, it was deemed expedient to protect small and medium-sized businesses by what was intended at the time as a temporary measure.

The German Government sought to propose the repeal of those two instruments in 1993/94, but its proposal was not adopted following opposition from the Upper House of Parliament and has not resurfaced since.

There can be no denying that the legislation in question, which has no counterpart elsewhere in the Community, might not be compatible with the principles of the single market. For, businesses are unable to adopt a pan-European promotional and advertising strategy in so far as they would have to rethink radically the content and nature of their advertising in order to comply with legislation in one of the largest markets in the Community. The Commission has received numerous complaints in this connection (see, for example, the answer to Written Question No 64/98 by Mr de Vries ((See page 26. ))).

In the absence of any Community harmonisation in this matter, the Commission is examining the possible restrictive effects and the proportionality of the German legislation as part of its investigations into the aforementioned complaints and in the light of the case law of the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4191/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) and Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: The situation of Christian minorities in Turkey

The organization 'Jubilee Campaign' reports that the Turkish Government has decided to restrict the activities of the Syrian Orthodox churches and three Syrian Orthodox religious communities in Tur Abdin. The communities concerned are Deyr-ul-Zafaran, Mor Gabriel and Mar Yakub of Salah. The monks and nuns currently living in them are being permitted to remain, but in a letter dated 6 October the Turkish Government prohibited them from giving instruction in the Syrian language, giving religious instruction, erecting new buildings or repairing existing ones, or receiving visitors or tourists.

These reports correspond to previous reports about the problems of religious minorities in South-Eastern Turkey. Attention has already been drawn to these in written questions E-3660/95 ((OJ C 112, 17.4.1996, p. 57. )) and E-1424/96 ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 38. )).

1. Can the Commission confirm the reports about the Syrian Orthodox churches in Turkey, and is it aware of the difficult conditions faced by Christian minorities?

2. Does the Commission agree that this action by the Turkish Government contravenes Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the provisions of the customs agreement between the EU and Turkey?

3. Will the Commission urge the Turkish authorities to lift the restrictions on the Syrian Orthodox churches, convents and monasteries?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 February 1998)

Information obtained by the Commission is to the effect that the Turkish Minister of the Interior was recently questioned by a Turkish Member of Parliament about the issue raised by the Honourable Members. In his answer (31 December 1997) the Minister stated that the Government was in no way minded to forbid religious teaching by the Syrian orthodox community, either to intervene or restrict its freedom of worship.

Whenever it is in contact with the Turkish authorities the Commission stresses the importance of improving the human rights situation and continuing the process of democratisation in Turkey.

It was pointed out at the European Council in Luxembourg in December 1997 that the strengthening of Turkey's links with the Union also depends on its pushing ahead with the political and economic reforms which it has initiated, notably the alignment of standards and practices in the field of human rights on those prevailing in the Union. The European Council also pointed out that a strengthening of Turkey's links with the Union also required respect for and protection of minorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2691/97

by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Use of European Regional Development Funds in Sobral, Portugal

It has been drawn to my attention that EU grants are being made twice to people in Sobral, Porches, Portugal; once for orange-growing subsidies on land recently cleared, and once for the destruction of those new orange trees to make way for infrastructure development in the form of the new autoroute, the Via Infante de Sagres.

What controls does the Commission employ to ensure that the projects qualifying for ERDF funds are not being used by the national authorities to pay compensation for land which has already been in receipt of EU subsidy for other purposes?

Supplementary answer

given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

In the absence of more precise information (the beneficiaries' names, exact location of the holdings concerned, year of grant of aid), the Commission is not in a position to check whether the aid for orange-growing was actually awarded. It is worth pointing out in this connection that any subsidy would have been conditional on maintaining the new plantings for a minimum of five-years.

With regard to the construction of the Sobral-Algarve sections of the "Via do Infante de Sagres", the Portuguese authorities have confirmed in a letter dated 13 March 1998 that no funding from the European Regional Development Fund was awarded for these road sections. In the circumstances, the question of whether Community funding was awarded twice to the same people does not arise.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (17 February 1998)

Subject: Separate EU Ambassador for Asia

1. Can the Council President indicate why, to date, nothing has been done to appoint a separate EU Ambassador for Asia?

2. On the eve of the Europe-Asia Summit in London, is the Council President aware that the appointment of a separate EU Ambassador for Asia would, in a symbolic manner, emphasize EU unity in the light of the crisis in Asia and that it might help towards curbing the adverse effects of the current crisis on the economic situation and on employment, not only in Asia but also in the European Union?

Answer (30 April 1998)

The General Affairs Council on 23 February 1998 discussed the European Union's response to the financial crisis in Asia. The Presidency agreed to consider appointing a Special Representative, who could visit the region to underline Europe's support for those affected by the Asian financial crisis.

In the light of that discussion, the Presidency has decided to appoint Mr Derek Fatchett, Foreign Office Minister responsible for Asia, as its Special Representative. Mr Fatchett visited Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore from 3-7 March accompanied by Mr Cloos, representative of the European Commission.

The visit was a clear signal of the importance which the European Union attaches to helping tackle the crisis affecting Asia. It was designed to dispel any impression that Europe is less engaged than eg. the US in responding to the difficulties facing many of our Asian partners. It also provided an opportunity to make clear the EU's desire to discuss the Asian financial crisis at the 2nd Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM 2) in April 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0019/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Need to protect Schengen system data

According to European press reports, an official of the Belgian police auxiliary unit has been arrested and is being held by the Belgian authorities in Brussels on charges that he has passed on confidential information contained in the Schengen European system to criminal gangs, mainly from the Netherlands.

The press reports in question note that the above system contains information regarding the sex, sexual preferences, political and religious beliefs and the state of health of citizens of the Union.

Will the Commission give its official view on this matter and say how it intends to respond to these very grave charges which raise issues concerning democratic freedoms and the need to protect the private lives of EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

It is not for the Commission to comment on the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member.

At present, Schengen is an intergovernmental arrangement and does not confer any direct responsibility on the European institutions.

As far as the protection of personal data within the Schengen Information System is concerned, the Commission notes that, in accordance with Articles 114 and 115 of the Schengen Convention, each Contracting Party has designated a supervisory authority responsible, in compliance with national law, for carrying out independent supervision of the data file of the national section of the Schengen Information System and for checking that the processing and utilisation of data included in the Schengen Information System are not in violation of the rights of the person concerned. Any person has the right to ask the supervisory authorities to check the data concerning him which are included in the Schengen Information System, and the use which is made of such data.

A joint supervisory authority has been set up, with responsibility for supervising the technical support function of the Schengen Information System and for checking that the provisions of the Convention that relate to the technical support function of the Schengen Information System are properly implemented. It is also competent, in particular, to examine any difficulties of application or interpretation which may arise during the operation of the Schengen Information System, to study problems which may arise with the exercise of independent supervision by the national supervisory authorities of the Contracting Parties or in the exercise of the right of access to the system, and to draw up harmonised proposals for the purpose of finding joint solutions to existing problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/98 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council (30 January 1998)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Morocco: biological rest period

Does the planned extension of the biological rest period for the fishing fleet decided on by the Kingdom of Morocco, which goes beyond that provided for in the current Fisheries Agreement between Morocco and the European Union, have the express approval of the Fisheries Ministers of all the Member States?

Answer (30 March 1998)

The reply to this question is in the negative.

At its meeting on 18/19 December 1997, the Council was briefed by the Commission on the difficulties experienced in applying the Fisheries Agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco. The Council expressed considerable concern on this issue and asked the Commission to press on with its efforts to guarantee compliance with the undertakings entered into.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0056/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Travel packages for football supporters

It has been brought to my attention that, for their match against Atlético Madrid on 16 September 1997, Leicester City Football Club would only sell tickets as part of a travel package.

Given the Commission's answer to an earlier question of mine of this subject (P-3480/95) ((OJ C 137, 8.5.1996, p. 14. )), does not the Commission feel that Leicester City Football Club is almost certainly contravening EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

The Honourable Member draws the Commission's attention to the practice of Leicester City football club in connection with its away match against Atletico Madrid in the European Cup held in Madrid on 16 September 1997. It is alleged that the club sold tickets to that game only as part of travel packages.

The Honourable Member is of the opinion that the practice of the club, given an earlier reply from the Commission to his written question P-3480/95, is in contravention of the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

In the abovementioned reply, the Commission referred to its decision of 27 October 1992 ((OJ L 326, 12.11.1992. )) concerning the sale of tickets at the 1990 football world cup. In that case one tour operator was exclusively granted the right to sell entry tickets as part of a package tour by the organizing committee. All other tickets were sold on the condition that they would not be resold to travel agencies. This agreement was found by the Commission to infringe Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty.

Concerning the now questioned practices and their compatibility with the competition rules of the EC Treaty, it must, however, be pointed out that a necessary pre-requisite for the applicability of the competition rules, is that trade between Member States is affected, actually or potentially, as a result of the agreement or practice in question.

In the present case, it appears likely that tickets to the Leicester City football club match against Atletico Madrid were almost exclusively demanded by Leicester City football club supporters or at least by English supporters only. The demand for tickets to the match was thus of a purely national or even regional or local nature and eventual effects of the questioned practice was consequently confined to customers on the English market.

Therefore, it is doubtful whether the questioned practice affected trade between Member States to an appreciable extent.

However, even if it did, it is difficult to regard the conduct in question as constituting an appreciable restriction of competition under Community competition law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0023/98 by Francis Decourrière (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Single Programming Document - Objective 1, France, Hainaut - Industrial waste measures - Priority 4 - Sub-priority 4 - Measures 15-1

My attention has on a number of occasions been drawn to the difficulties encountered in obtaining funding for projects concerning matter other than industrial waste, on the grounds that it is said not to be eligible.

1. Cannot units for the treatment of:

- hospital waste

- green waste

- domestic refuse

be eligible under the measures industrial waste - Priority 4 - Sub-priority 4 - Measures 15-1?

2. Will the Commission extend the projects eligible to cover them?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

The question refers to the difficulties said to be encountered by certain projects for the treatment of non-industrial waste under the single programming document (SPD) for Objective 1 in the North/Pas de Calais region.

The Commission wishes give high priority in regional policy operations to the treatment of industrial waste and to the establishment and development of firms, particularly small and medium-sized firms, in the environmental sector. That is why this SPD for Objective 1 does not include part-financing for units to treat non-industrial waste or for collective sewage treatment plants. The amendment of the SPD to include them could have serious financial repercussions and would mean a revision of the strategy, which would be a matter for the partnership.

It should, however, be possible to support the establishment of firms to treat or recycle waste, particularly if they use new technologies. The SPD does include measures to support investment by firms and for the introduction of clean and economical technologies into existing firms. It should be possible to use these measures, with any necessary adjustments, to meet the needs referred to.