ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Value of food aid to Russia

Can the Commission explain how EU food aid for Russia worth about ECU 400 million is actually valued and whether this ECU 400 million is the value of the food at Community prices or the value normally placed on surpluses which are sold on the world market? Can the Commission state the value of this proposed aid both at Community prices and at world prices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Following the formal Russian request for food aid of 12 November 1998 and the first positive reactions from the Council and the Parliament, the Commission has submitted a proposal regarding a food supply programme to the Council and the Parliament as a matter of urgency. The proposal is based on Article 43 of the EC Treaty and covers wheat, rye, rice, beef, pork and skimmed milk powder.

It is intended that the products will be obtained from the Community's public intervention stocks with the exception of pork, which will be obtained from the commercial market. The net cost of the operation to the Community budget is estimated at approximately [fmxeuro] 400 million. Within the total, the valuation of the products concerned totals about [fmxeuro] 380 million. This includes a valuation for pork which is based on market prices within the Community. For the other products, account is taken of their book-keeping values, which are in line with world prices, given that, in accordance with the Community regulations, products bought into intervention have already been depreciated down to their expected net commercial selling prices, notably on world markets. If full Community intervention buying-in prices are taken as the basis, the total valuation of the products concerned would approach [fmxeuro] 800 million.

The budgetary authority has agreed that an amount of [fmxeuro] 400 million should be provided from within the appropriations of the 1998 budget for the financing of the net budgetary cost of this operation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3294/98

by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Medical insurance in the European Union

1. In point 4 of his reply to my Question No 2898/97(1), Commissioner Flynn stated that the Commission was investigating whether private insurance schemes in the Netherlands could be considered to be statutory in the light of the recent amendments to Netherlands legislation. Has the Commission received an answer from the Netherlands Government?

2. If not, why not?

3. If so, what are the Commission's conclusions on the basis of this reply?

4. If no conclusions have yet been reached, when does the Commission plan to provide definitive conclusions on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The Commission has received an answer from the Dutch government to its request for further information on private health insurance in the Netherlands.

On the basis of the answers provided by the Dutch government, supplementary questions arose, notably relating to the exact relationship between the WTZ (Wet op de toegang ziektekostenverzekering - Law on the access to health insurance) and the legislation on co-financing for elderly sick people as well as questions on the practical implementation and meaning of the financial transfers between the executive body referred to in Article 6 of the WTZ and the health care insurers.

The Commission expects to give its conclusions on this matter once the answers to the supplementary questions have been given by the Dutch government.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 95.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4067/98

by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Access of immigrants from other EU Member States to civil service employment in Luxembourg

The project of EU citizenship, an objective enshrined the TEU, is bound to encounter difficulties.

While it is clearly difficult to define the limits of civil service employment reserved for nationals, there are cases in which the principles of equality or non-discrimination for immigrants from other Member States which should be guaranteed have been flagrantly ignored. A number of such cases are the result of legislation in Luxembourg and the position taken by the authorities of this country as regards access to all levels of civil service employment: they have already elicited protests at Community level leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.

In order to take stock of the situation and to dispel my doubts and to enable me to adopt positions in exercising my mandate as an MEP, will the Commission say whether it has already taken measures - and if so which measures - as regards the access of immigrants from other EU Member States to civil service competitions and posts in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

Luxembourg legislation does not always give Community nationals generalised access to national civil service employment. The Commission initiated an infringement procedure on this subject, leading to a judgment by the Court of Justice on 2 July 1996 (Commission v. Luxembourg). In this judgment, the Court ruled against Luxembourg, on the grounds that it had maintained Luxembourg nationality as a general requirement for access to public service posts in certain areas of activity in the public sector.

Since the Court's judgment, the Commission has initiated a further infringement procedure, as Luxembourg has not yet complied with the judgment. According to the information at the Commission's disposal, the Luxembourg authorities have started an internal procedure to bring national legislation into line, but this has been delayed by the need to amend the country's Constitution.

Under these circumstances, the infringement procedure against Luxembourg will follow its course on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty until the national authorities take all the necessary measures to bring the relevant legislation into line with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Denmark and the Schengen agreement

Can Denmark withdraw from the Schengen agreement and reintroduce checks on individuals which had to be abolished in the meantime?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Member States involved entered the Schengen Agreement as part of the Community's aim to achieve an internal market comprising an area without internal borders. There are thus no provisions in the Agreement allowing a Member State to rescind the Agreement.

Nor are there any provisions in the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, for a Member State governed by the Schengen acquis to terminate its involvement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3333/98

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: Culture

The Italian press has reported that degree courses at Italian universities are to be harmonized and made equivalent to those in other countries, in particular an initial course lasting three years and called a "first degree course" and a one-year postgraduate specialization course corresponding to a European Master's degree course.

Can the Commission say how this equivalence is to be achieved and how long it will take, and can it also say whether there is a specific project for this purpose and how it is being structured?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

The Commission assumes that the article in the Italian press refers to the joint declaration on the harmonisation of the European higher education systems signed in Paris on 25 May 1998 by the higher education ministers of Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of the Sorbonne.

The declaration underlines the exciting prospect of an open higher education area. To create this, various obstacles need to be demolished and a common education framework developed, although national differences must be respected. The declaration also indicates that a system appears to be emerging in which two main phases - undergraduate and postgraduate - should be recognised in order to facilitate international comparison and equivalence.

The Commission welcomes this declaration. However, as the organisation of higher education comes under the responsibility of the Member States, the Commission merely announced that it was at the Member States' disposal to share the experience it has acquired in the context of these European programmes and facilitate the exchange of information.

The education ministers of the Member States concerned are planning another meeting in 1999, open to other Member States, to examine in greater depth the subjects covered by the declaration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Rules on the labelling of genetically modified organisms

What action is the Commission taking to require its trading partners, in particular the United States, to conform to the rules on the labelling of genetically modified organisms which will apply in the Member States so as to guarantee the principles of caution and transparency which must guide our policy in this field?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

Community legislation concerning compulsory labelling of products consisting of, or derived from, genetically modified organisms (GMO) applies to products sold within the Community, irrespective of the origin or provenance of such products.

Under Directive 90/220/EEC(1) as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(2) products which are to be placed on the market which consist of, or contain, genetically modified organisms require a consent. The information that is required in a notification for a consent requires a proposal for labelling or accompanying documentation which indicates the presence of the genetically modified organisms.

Concerning the particular field of foodstuffs, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to Article 1 (2) of the Regulation (EC) 258/97 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(3) which states that the Regulation shall apply to "the placing on the market within the Community" of (novel) foods and food ingredients. Further, by Regulation (EC) 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Durective 79/112/EEC(4) concerning the labelling of certain maize and soya, it was ensured that food and food ingredients produced from soya and maize, which do not fall under Regulation (EC) 258/97, because they were on the market before that Regulation entered into force, are put on the same footing as regards labelling as if they fell under the scope of Regulation (EC) 258/97. It also could serve as a model for the labelling of other GMO.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997.

(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(4) OJ L 159, 3.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: ECHO humanitarian operations in North Korea

Over the past few months ECHO has supported a series of projects submitted and implemented by European humanitarian aid NGOs in North Korea.

These operations have undoubtedly had a positive impact on the serious humanitarian crisis affecting the country in a whole range of areas (food, social conditions, health, etc.).

At the same time problems have apparently arisen with regard to relations with the North Korean authorities.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it intend to continue providing support for NGO humanitarian operations, as is to be hoped given the ongoing disastrous problems facing North Korea?

2. What criteria will be used and what financial resources will be made available for this purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf on the Commission

(23 November 1998)

Based on what Commission staff and partner non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have observed in the field, North Korea is facing an economic and structural crisis (which has resulted in shortages in food, medicine and medical equipment) rather than a classic famine situation (such as may be encountered in some African countries). Many observers have the impression that, over the last months, the general situation seems to have improved, mainly due to the massive inflow of international assistance.

For humanitarian agencies in the health and medical sectors, working conditions in North Korea have always been subject to important restrictions (access to information, access to beneficiaries, monitoring conditions). In recent months, North Korean authorities have even tightened up working conditions in this sector and apparently local authorities intend to take back full responsability for public health sectors over the coming months. Several NGO partners have already left the country, because their memoranda of understanding were not renewed by the North Koreans (currently only three partners active in the health and medical sectors remain in the country).

Last year the Commission allocated around ECU 20 million to North Korea in the health and medical sector, as compared to ECU 2,5 million this year. The Commission is still financing two humanitarian projects in North Korea. However, in order for humanitarian action in this sector to be meaningful and effective and therefore in line with the Commission's mandate, certain conditions must be met (freedom of access to beneficiaries and freedom to monitor the projects by NGOs). Before deciding on any future interventions in the health and medical sectors, the Commission will therefore have to pay close attention to developments in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3390/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Health hazards for the population of Northern Greece

The implementation of an agreement between FYROM and Turkey on the burial of nuclear and toxic waste next to the FYROM-Greek border poses a horrendous health hazard for the population of Northern Greece. More specifically, Greek press reports (based on foreign diplomatic sources) state that during the recent visit of Turkish President Suleyman Demirel to Skopje discussions were held on the burial of waste on FYROM territory, and it was agreed that Turkey would pay 200 million dollars to FYROM in exchange for burying Turkish and French nuclear and toxic waste in the Morichovou region which lies on the FYROM-Greek border.

Geological studies have found that the storage of toxic waste on FYROM territory would lead to the pollution of the Thermaic Gulf, since 98 % of this waste would be transported there by underground streams.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above matter and what action it intends to take in order effectively to protect the health of the inhabitants of Northern Greece and the ecosystem of the Thermaic Gulf from dangerous actions by the two countries in question (Turkey and FYROM) which both receive economic assistance from the EU?

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

(6 January 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the specific arrangements between Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia concerning nuclear waste disposal on the territory of the latter close to the border of Greece, but has taken due note of what the Honourable Member says.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey are both parties to the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal which entered into force in 1992. According to Article 1, paragraph 3 of this Convention, radioactive wastes subject to other international control systems, including international instruments, applying specifically to radioactive materials, are excluded from the scope of this Convention. The disposal in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of nuclear waste originating in Turkey and any possible impact on the Greek population, may be, therefore, subject of other international arrangements. In any case, this clearly is a matter between the countries concerned and does not fall under the responsibility of the Community.

According to the second report(1) on the application in 1994 and 1995 of Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community(2) France has not shipped any radioactive waste towards the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Article 11.2 of this Directive says that shipments towards a third country cannot be authorized if the Member State of origin is of the opinion that the third country does not have the technical, legal or administrative resources to manage the radioactive waste safety.

(1) COM(95) 192 final.

(2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The costs of and length of time taken by Court cases

The recent court case involving a British sugar company, I understand, took over 10 years from start to finish. Could you explain why it took this length of time? Were costs awarded against the company?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Without fuller information, which the Honourable Member is asked to provide, the Commission has been unable to find any case involving a sugar company on which a Community court took over ten years to reach a verdict.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3744/98

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Appointments in GD IB and GD VIII to deal with women and development issues

The Commission has adopted the idea of a "mainstreaming" approach to women and development issues. How many people at the Commission have been appointed to ensure that this approach is put into practice? How many have been appointed to the new common service department and to GD IB and GD VIII? Have these posts been filled by temporary external staff on secondment or by actual officials and, in the latter case, in which grade (A, B or C)?

The Commission has a budget for staff training. What proportion of this budget has so far been spent on training staff in "mainstreaming" in relation to women? Are any of these funds earmarked for such training?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Since 1996, the Commission's policy on "mainstreaming" has required each directorate general to integrate a gender and equal opportunities perspective into its policy areas.

In the case of the directorates general responsible for development issues, this priority is reflected in the respective organisation charts. In the Joint Relex Service, Unit B.5's responsibilities include gender issues. In DG VIII (Development) and DG IB (External relations: Southern Mediterranean, Middle East, Latin America, South and South-East Asia and North-South cooperation), Units A2 and D2 are responsible for "mainstreaming" of gender issues in their respective directorates general.

However, the Commission is fully aware that - if they are to be effective - "mainstreaming" activities can not be limited to these units alone. Thus many other officials are also involved in "mainstreaming" in their daily work. As part of its policy on "mainstreaming" the Commission is building on the regular exchange of information and experience which already takes place between directorates general on this issue. Officials have been appointed by 29 directorates general and horizontal services with specific responsibility for gender "mainstreaming" in their respective services and participate in the inter-service cooperation to develop and monitor the Commission policy of gender "mainstreaming". Specific training for officials and a specific mention of the gender dimension of management will appear in a call for tender which is about to be launched for the training of all middle and senior management in the Commission.

Three specific training courses are organised at present in this area, the latest of which is specifically targeted at the "mainstreaming" officers in the Commission who are themselves responsible for promoting this policy in the individual directorates general. About 250 people follow these three courses over a period of 12 months and their cost accounts for approximately 8 % of the budget for centrally-organised training activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Naples and the European Regional Development Fund

Can the Commission provide the following information:

- the number of projects submitted in the City of Naples to be funded by the ERDF;

- the number of projects actually approved, their location and duration;

- the amount of financial aid provided or promised by the European Union for projects funded by the ERDF on the basis of the estimates contained within the present Structural Funds;

- a comparative analysis of the European projects submitted, funded and carried out in other Italian cities within the context of the ERDF?

Can the Commission provide data showing the impact on employment of the projects which have been carried out with ERDF funding in Naples, by comparison with projects in other Italian cities?

In the light of the current situation, can the Commission also indicate any circumstances in which the City of Naples has not fully utilized the ERDF funds and the extent to which the City of Naples will be able to continue to receive the support from that Fund?

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

(30 September 1998)

Since the first reform of the Structural Funds in 1989, the predominant form of assistance has been operational programmes. Apart from major projects, which are dealt with on an individual basis, the specific projects financed inside a programme from which Italy benefits are simply communicated to the members of the monitoring committee for the programme by the authority responsible for its implementation.

In general, the list of these projects is not structured by physical location but by beneficiary (commune, province, region or company benefiting from aid). On the basis of the data which the Commission has, it is not therefore possible to provide the detailed information requested by the Honourable Member for the town of Naples, or to make a comparative analysis with other Italian cities. Also, the Commission does not have data concerning the impact on employment in the city of Naples only.

With regard to the resources made available by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the city of Naples, the Objective 1 Community Support Framework for Italy for the period 1994-99 stipulates that 70 % of the resources allocated to the region of Campania (ECU 890 million) should be used in the metropolitan area of Naples. A specific evaluation of the use of these resources has not been carried out yet. Nevertheless, under its agreement of July 1995 with the Italian authorities on improving the management of the Structural Funds in Italy, the Commission is following closely the implementation of all the programmes, including the regional programme for Campania.

It is not possible to indicate the level of Structural Funds spending for the city of Naples in the next programming period.