ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Olive oil and blends

Why does the most recent reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil approved by the Council not include a ban on blends, even though their use is detrimental to the quality or designations of origin of olive oil and, moreover, the European Parliament had supported such a ban in its recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Mixtures of olive oil and other vegetable oils do not qualify for protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications.

The Council and the Commission, in connection with the compromise of 25 June 1998, agreed to give particular priority to a detailed examination of quality strategy during the period preceding the definitive proposal for the reform of the common organisation of the market in olive oil. This includes the question of mixtures of olive oil and seed oils. This question requires an investigation of the various possible options, for which Member States put forward contradictory arguments, and has to be studied in connection with aspects relating to analyses and quality control.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1859/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Safeguards and the cost of inspecting nuclear plants

In its answer to my question E-663/98(1) on the reliability of Euratom safeguards, the Commission stated that "as long as resources are available, the Commission will continue to perform continual inspections at the Dounreay site". It goes on to say that it "is not aware either of any shortcomings in its safeguarding operations or of any dumping of safeguarded materials at the Dounreay site". However, the April bulletin of the European Atomic Forum, concerning the contents of the waste shaft I mentioned, writes that, as the type of radioactive waste is not precisely known, a study will first be carried out of the surrounding hydrogeology and the best disposition of boreholes and instruments'.

1. Are the resources available to the Euratom authority adequate to continue to conduct all inspections required in European nuclear plant at regular intervals in future?

2. What is the annual cost of such inspections, and how much would be needed, in Euratom's view, to continue to perform all necessary inspections?

3. Can the Commission categorically rule out the presence in the Dounreay nuclear waste shaft of substances which should in fact be subject to its inspection?

4. In this connection, how does the Commission respond to the statement by the nuclear industry that the contents of the shaft are unknown?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

1. In a time of limited public budgets the Commission will continue its endeavours to allocate the financial and human resources necessary to meet the safeguards obligations in the nuclear installations of the Community. The attention which the Parliament pays to this issue is highly appreciated and support continues to be welcome.

2. In 1997, the operational expenses of the Euratom Safeguards Directorate (excluding personnel) were ECU 15,8 million and are ECU 16,0 million for 1998. The current estimated budget requirements for the following four years according to the indicative financial programming established by the Commission are as follows: 1999 ECU 16,4 million; 2000 ECU 16,8 million; 2001 ECU 17,1 million; 2002 ECU 17,4 million.

3. Upon accession of the United Kingdom, the routine operation of the Dounreay waste disposal shaft mentioned by the Honourable Member was already terminated. Thus, the Commission could not verify the information on the nuclear inventory received from the operator.

4. Regarding the nuclear material contents of that shaft, the Commission has received some documentation which is being evaluated.

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 62.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Spending on social protection in the European Union

According to the Commission report (COM(98) 243 final) on social protection in Europe 1997, there continue to be major disparities in the expenditure of the Member States in this area, ranging from 20 and 21 % of GDP in Ireland and Greece respectively to 36 % in Sweden. Levels of unemployment benefit also vary, ranging from 60-65 % of a worker's salary in Denmark and France to 25 % in Greece. In the light of the above and the fact that, according to the same report, social benefits represent the main source of income for around 35 % of households in the European Union and that without them 40 % of households would be living in poverty, will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to harmonise social spending in the Member States and to reduce poverty, particularly in countries such as Greece, which has one of the lowest levels of social spending despite the fact that its regions are among the poorest in terms of per capita GDP?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

Each Member State is responsible for the organisation and financing of its own social protection system, and public expenditure on social protection in the Member States varies markedly between individual Member States, ranging from 20 % gross domestic product (GDP) in Ireland, to 36 % GDP in Sweden(1).

In this context, however, it has to be emphasised that the level of public expenditure for social protection alone is not a comprehensive assessment of the level of social protection existing in a specific Member State. Effective transfers can, in principle, be made through tax concessions or allowances as well as through benefits payments and, in this case, will show up as lower receipts rather than expenditure. The strength of the public pillar within the overall social protection system of a Member State reflects not only the specific demographic structure, and in particular the structure of households and family, but also the relative importance of occupational schemes and private provisions.

The Commission promotes co-operation between Member States in order to achieve a high degree of convergence of objectives and policies in the field of social protection. The Commission will present, at the end of 1998, a report on the implementation of Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems(2); and in early 1999, a communication including an assessment of the implementation of Council Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992 on the convergence of social protection objectives and policies2.

The Treaty of Amsterdam introduces in Article 137 a new mandate for the Union to act to combat social exclusion.

(1) Social Protection in Europe Report.

(2) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Conclusion of programme agreements in Greece

According to reports in the Greek press, the Commission has doubts as to whether Greece is duly implementing agreements on programmes in the fields of telecommunications, energy, water supplies and transport valued at DRS 1 trillion, which public authorities concluded at the end of 1997 with private firms.

The projects planned under the agreements are considered to be particularly important and any complication in implementing them will cause serious problems. Will the Commission, therefore, say whether there is a problem in concluding the agreements on the programmes, where the problem lies, which particular agreements are concerned and what the Commission intends to do to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1998)

The Commission has received complaints, backed up by reports in the Greek press, that some firms have been excluded on grounds of nationality from programme contracts awarded by Greek public entities operating in the utilities sector (sectors covered by Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entitites operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors(1)). The Commission has consequently contacted the Greek authorities to seek clarification of the situation.

According to the information available to the Commission, it seems that the programme contracts in question, valued at around ECU 3 600 million in total, were concluded by Greek public enterprises just before Directive 93/38/EEC entered into force in Greece. However, the Commission notes that while no specific rules of secondary Community legislation apply in this instance (since Directive 93/38/EEC was not in force in Greece at the time), these contracts are nonetheless subject to the general rules and principles laid down in the EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of non-discrimination based on nationality.

The Commission and the Greek authorities are currently in the process of examining whether or not firms were actually excluded on the basis of their nationality. If need be, the Commission will not hesitate to pursue the matter under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2864/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(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 Council plan to base the calculation of limit values on children in future? If not, why not? How does the Council 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 Council 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 Council envisage achieving this? How should a directive on the assessment of impact on children be transposed?

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

Reply

(27 November 1998)

1. The Council is aware of the importance of protecting the health of Community citizens. This is in fact one of the aims of the environment policy, which naturally includes the health and well-being of children.

For example, in its common position on a proposal for a Directive relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, adopted on 24 September 1998, the Council inserted a recital pointing out that the limit values laid down in the Directive are minimum requirements, and that Member States may introduce stricter limit values "to protect the health of particularly vulnerable categories of the population, such as children and hospital patients".

2. However, the Council does not intervene at the preparatory stage of proposals submitted by the Commission, which - as the Honourable Member is aware - holds the right of legislative initiative in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Market prices for training activities cofinanced under the ESF

In its reply to Written Question P-1145/98(1) the Commission said that the services performed by a company for the consortium to which it is associated with regard to training activities under programmes co-funded by the ESF are legitimate, as is the charging of market prices for those services. It thus clearly confirms that the non-profitability obligation falls on the training body and not on its associates.

As regards the attainment of uniformity of the checkable method referred to in datasheet No 4 (expenditure eligible under the Structural Funds), which of the following methods is compatible in respect of market prices:

(a) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than the parametres set by the European Union?

(b) Calculated (entered in the accounts) costs equal to or lower than at least two other offers made to the training body by other persons (as laid down in a decision by the European Court of Auditors in some previous cases)?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1998)

Further to its answer to the Honourable Member's written question No P-1145/98, the Commission would like to point out that the uniformity of expenditure on training is the subject of a specific provision of Community regulations. Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 2084/93(2) states that "the Commission shall ensure that Fund expenditure for training operations of the same type does not develop in different ways".

To do this, in accordance with the committee's opinion and Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) 4253/88(3), it determines for each Member State, in agreement with that State, the indicative average amounts of expenditure according to the type of training involved. Comparable costs, subsequently defined in Ministry of Labour Circular No 98/95, are agreed at the place of establishment of the partnership, with reference to teacher categories, while Circular No 101/97 from the same Ministry defines the occupational categories and the relevant payment ceilings.

This means that the prices reported must comply with the parameters laid down in the Ministry of Labour circulars referred to.

(1) OJ C 402, 22.12.1998, p. 80.

(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3179/98

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Social clauses for PHARE

The PHARE programme has become an instrument for providing support for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in preparing them for accession.

It would seem appropriate to ensure, when this programme is implemented, that the funds are used in accordance with European social policy and that they respect fundamental social rights, within the meaning of the Social Charter, on the basis of the acquis communautaire.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What means are there for ensuring compliance with fundamental social rights when PHARE programmes are granted?

2. What would happen if there was found to be a contravention; i.e. what procedures would be activated?

3. Have there been any instances of problems of this nature occurring?

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

(18 November 1998)

1. One of the prime concerns of the Phare programme is adherence to basic social rights which are part and parcel of the acquis. Hence not only those areas in which there are explicit regulations on labour law, social dialogue, equal treatment, social protection, public health, health and safety at work and for migrant workers, but also in those "soft law" areas of European social legislation derived from the social charter, are part of the accession driven re-oriented Phare strategy. Whenever draft programmes or individual projects within Phare are received for approval, due consideration is also given to conformity with the wider definition of the social acquis of the Community.

There are also Phare programmes which deal exclusively with the social acquis in a more narrow sense. Consensus deals with social security reform in the Central and Eastern European countries, and the Lien and Partnership programmes deal with non governmental organizations in the spheres of minority and disadvantaged groups and of socio-economic operators respectively.

The accession partnerships also set as a medium-term priority preparation of the CEECs in the area of employment and social affairs. Allocation of funding is linked inter alia to respect of these priorities.

2. and 3. The Commission is not aware of any Phare programme or individual project violating the social acquis of the Community. If it notices or becomes alerted to any such occurrence, the Commission will not hesitate to rectify the situation with the appropriate means without delay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes on improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Can the Commission estimate (in percentage and/or real terms) the extent to which nuclear safety has improved in the recipient countries, following the deployment of the various types of EU aid, since the programmes were initiated?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Delays on the part of the Italian Government in setting up a guarantee fund for SMEs

The Ecofin Council has approved the allocation of EUR 420 million to various measures aimed at SMEs, including a loan-guarantee fund requiring a financial contribution from the Member States.

The Italian Ministry for Industry has initiated a yet to be concluded legislative procedure for the adoption of a decree establishing a national guarantee fund to match the European fund. The Italian fund should have been available by mid-September, but the decree is not expected to be issued in the near future.

Owing to the failure to issue the necessary decree, Italian SMEs are once again unable to take advantage of European aid, which will instead go to Member States quicker to react in introducing the instruments required to be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the Community. The delays on the part of the Italian Government thus penalise only the potential beneficiaries of Community aid - in this case SMEs.

How does the Council intend to protect the interests of SMEs placed at a disadvantage by their government's failure to take the necessary legislative action in good time?

What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis those governments which fail to adopt appropriate measures, thus penalising businesses in their own countries?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

In accordance with the division of powers between the Institutions under the Treaty, the Council has no competence to ensure that the Community measures are applied in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/98

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Reform of the law on representation in the armed forces in Italy

On 21 July 1998, the defence committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved the text of a law aimed at reforming the system of representation in the armed forces.

The substance of the law reveals the lack of a political will to undertake an innovative reform of the system of representative in the armed forces so as to improve the conditions of military personnel.

The law has been met with complete indifference and has failed to prompt any critical reaction on the part of military personnel, indicating a serious and alarming lack of concern about the law's content.

For many years the fundamental rights of military personnel in the armed forces of European countries have been enjoyed wide-ranging and comprehensive protection under the law. In view of the fact that in 1985 and 1997 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation stating that military personnel should be allowed proper and effective representation, does the Council not consider it necessary to make a specific recommendation, without encroaching on the autonomy of the Italian Parliament, that the new law, which is set to be approved by the Senate, should incorporate the constitutional right to the protection of the fundamental and inalienable rights of association and be brought into line with similar laws in other European countries as part of a unified defence policy in the WEU?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the competence of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Withdrawn proposals for directives

Commission President Santer is reported to have said in the discussion begun by Kohl and Chirac on subsidiarity and the dangers of a centralistic discussion that the present European Commission has withdrawn 140 proposals for directives since it took office in 1995 (APA 647 of 16.6.1998/19:40). Against this background, can the Commission

- confirm this report and, if it is accurate,

- give a detailed list of the proposals in question and, if possible, say why it withdrew them?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, since 1995, it has withdrawn 143 proposals which were no longer topical, 61 of them in 1995, 48 in 1996 and 34 in 1997. The Commission would point out that not only proposals for directives but proposals in general have been withdrawn. In some cases they have been overtaken by events (where a change occurred in the legal, economic or political situation which had inspired them or where the proposal's objective had been attained by other means). In other cases because the Commission now adopts another approach (for example a new proposal has already been presented or is being drafted).

Naturally, the detailed lists containing these proposals have been transmitted to Parliament. The 1995 list was transmitted on 14 November 1995(1), the 1996 list on 21 November 1996(2) and the 1997 list on 4 February 1998(3).

(1) OJ C 344, 22.12.1995.

(2) OJ C 2, 4.1.1997.

(3) OJ C 40, 7.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2950/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Recognition of academic qualifications

In the reply to question E-1304/98(1) which I submitted on 29 April 1998 no mention is made of the third question, which I shall rephrase for ease of understanding: With what conditions must an Italian student with a Master of Arts degree from the Open University in Britain comply so that his degree is recognised?

1. Can the Commission provide the information requested?

2. If not, to whom must students in this situation turn to obtain correct information?

3. Does the Commission rule out taking steps to ensure that such students have their rights recognised?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 1998)

In reply to the first question, the Commission would like to refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question No 1304/98(2), in which it explained that there is no system of automatic recognition of diplomas in the Community. As a result, the "Master of Arts" degree awarded by the Open University in the UK is not automatically recognised in Italy or any other Member State. Furthermore, in reply to the third question, the Commission would like to emphasise once again that the academic recognition of diplomas and the conditions which must be fulfilled for diplomas to be recognised are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States. In view of the diversity of the contents and structure of higher education in the Community, diplomas are assessed on a case-by-case basis. This means that Open University graduates wishing to have their "Master of Arts" degree recognised in Italy will have to apply to the Italian authorities.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 89.

(2) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.