ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/98

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Public finances and EMU

The requirement laid down in the Waigel stability pact that public deficit should remain below 3 % of GDP has caused difficulties in the public sector. Unemployment in the EU Member States may continue to grow if a strict and inflexible 3 % requirement is applied to the public sector. The existing penalties procedure may also exacerbate the situation in the Member States.

An economic policy which keeps a tight lid on public finances by means of cuts and reducing the size of the workforce may cause further unemployment and public uncertainty in the initial stages of EMU. Therefore the stability pact should include enough room for manoeuvre to allow the limit to be temporarily exceeded.

That being so, what does the Commission propose to do to protect jobs in the public sector in those Member States where workers are being laid off and sacked in the interests of a strict and inflexible public deficit requirement?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

Since the approval by the Council of the first broad economic policy guidelines in 1994, the economic policy line of the Community in the budgetary field has been that budgetary consolidation in the Member States is the most adequate way to restore room for manoeuvre in the field of public finances and to promote a strong "crowding-in" of private investment and productive capacity in Europe. These budgetary policies also contribute to the achievement of a balanced, stability-oriented policy mix favourable to growth and employment. Indeed the historical experience of high-debt Member States has amply demonstrated that the huge build-up of debt charges that unavoidably follows uncontrolled deficits and debt expansion severely hampers the ability to maintain an adequate level of public services.

These consolidation efforts should be made in a socially balanced way without impinging on the quality of government services but through increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of government spending and favouring productive activities such as infrastructure investment, human capital improvement and active labour market policies.

However, within these general principles and the requirements of policy co-ordination as expressed in the Amsterdam Treaty, the responsibility of taking the precise budgetary measures corresponding to these policies belongs entirely to Member States according to their specific budgetary procedures, in line with the subsidiarity principle.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0460/98

by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 1998)

Subject: Welfare of laying hens

When does the Commission intend to bring forward proposals on improving the welfare of laying hens?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-115/98 by Mrs Pollack(1).

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 33.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Euro 2000 Sale of tickets

Given that UEFA has stated that it intends to consult European Commission legal experts in preparation for the EURO 2000 Football Tournament to be held in Belgium and Holland with regard to ticketing arrangements, can the Commission guarantee that we will not have a re-run of the current situation involving EU Competition law and the World Cup three months before EURO 2000 kicks off?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

In the light of recent events, representatives from the Union of European football associations (UEFA) met recently with the Commission to discuss ticketing arrangements for the European football championships to be held in 2000. During the course of those discussions, UEFA confirmed their intention to take full account of the Commission's concerns which have become apparent in recent months in relation to ticket sales for this year's football world cup in France. The Honourable Member can be assured however that as soon as they have been finalised, the Commission will wish to examine in detail UEFA's proposed ticketing arrangements with a view to ensuring their compatibility with Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1258/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Discrimination over the sale of tickets for the World Cup football tournament

1. What is the Commission's view of the case concerning discrimination over the sale of tickets for the World Cup football tournament in France in 1998?

2. What steps has it taken to remedy the situation so that EU citizens are guaranteed equal access to the purchase of tickets for the 1998 World Cup?

3. What action does it intend to take to ensure that a similar situation does not arise in the future with events of this kind in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission's services have completed a preliminary assessment of the arrangements for the sale of World Cup tickets by the tournament organisers (the Comité français d'organisation de la Coupe du Monde de Football 1998 (CFO), and have taken the preliminary view that they breach the competition provisions of the EC Treaty insofar as they required those wishing to purchase tickets directly from the CFO to provide an address in France to which the tickets could be sent. This requirement appears to have discriminated against consumers resident outside France who, for one reason or another, were unable to obtain tickets through accredited tour operators or from their respective national football federations. As such the Commission's services have informed the CFO of their preliminary view that it has abused its dominant position in the market for World Cup tickets contrary to Article 86 of the EC Treaty.

In order to redress, as far as was possible, the effects of this discriminatory behaviour the Commission asked the CFO to make available all remaining unsold tickets exclusively to residents outside France. The CFO indicated on 23 March 1998 that it could not agree to such a request but would instead offer these tickets to French and non-French residents alike on a non-discriminatory basis. In view of this refusal the Commission is currently preparing formal legal proceedings against the CFO in relation to tickets sold under the above-mentioned discriminatory arrangements.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will not hesitate to act against organisers of international sporting events should similar circumstances arise in the future. Nevertheless, the Commission would prefer to resolve any problems at an earlier stage, and as such welcomed the recent initiative of the Union of European Football associations (UEFA) to discuss in full the ticketing arrangements for the 2000 European football championships with a view to ensuring their compatibility with Community competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: The future of small cafés and bars in rural areas

The press has recently reported that the Commission is funding small village cafés in deprived areas of the South of France under its Leader programme (the Community initiative for rural development).

This seems admirable, given that local cafés help maintain the social, economic and cultural life of the EU's rural areas and assist the tourist trade.

Local cafés also indubitably help prevent alcohol abuse by providing a social setting that encourages moderation rather than excess.

That being so, does the Commission agree that it is paradoxical that, at a time when DG VI is supporting cafés by means of the Structural Funds, another directorate-general, DG IV, is in danger of closing them down by considering the possibility, in the Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy, of withdrawing or restricting the opportunities allowed to the main brewers whose market share exceeds a given threshold to finance cafés by means of exclusive purchasing agreements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission's attention to the connections between the Community Leader II Initiative and the Green Paper on vertical restraints in EU competition policy(1). As regards the Green Paper, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answers given to his written questions E-1079/98, 1080/98 and 1081/98.

The aim of Community intervention under Leader II is to stimulate economic activity and to improve living conditions in small rural communities represented by local action groups responsible for a local development programme. This objective is not contradictory to that of competition policy, which aims to create a fair competitive environment for the benefit of European businesses and consumers.

With this in view, the Commission wishes drinks outlets to be given more opportunity to buy from the brewer of their choice, thus pursuing the commercial policy most favourable to their own and their customers' interests by increasing consumer choice as to the beer brands available in local cafés.

If future competition policy on vertical restraints - following the consultations and proposals launched by the Green Paper - were to result in restricting the scope for applying a block exemption by means of setting market-share thresholds, this would not mean that brewers exceeding those thresholds would be denied the option of concluding exclusive agreements. It would merely mean that those agreements would no longer be automatically exempt. Individual exemptions could still be granted on the basis of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty, provided that the agreements concerned enabled production and distribution to be improved, brought substantial benefits to consumers and did not prevent effective competition. These requirements are not contradictory to the aims of Leader II.

(1) COM(96) 721 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Food labelling

Does the Commission still intend to undertake a comprehensive review of food labelling?

If so, when will the result be available?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

As promised at the time of the adoption of the last amendment(1) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer(2), the procedure of codification of this Directive has been launched to make it more comprehensible to its users. A proposal for a codified text should reach the Parliament and the Council at the end of this year.

Moreover, the Commission is currently examining the need to amend Directive 79/112/EEC to ensure better information for people who suffer from food allergy.

Finally, the Commission, within the framework of the follow-up of the green paper on food legislation(3), will examine the need for and the feasibility of, a simplification of Community legislation on labelling of foodstuffs to regroup as much as possible all labelling provisions.

(1) COM(98) 99 final.

(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.

(3) COM(97) 176 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1550/98

by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 1998)

Subject: Crédit Lyonnais

How has the Commission felt itself able to make public statements which have seriously damaged and now seriously threaten a major European bank, namely Crédit Lyonnais, and its plans to solve its problems by guaranteeing its survival and ensuring continuing employment?

I am surprised by the Commission's criticism of the increase in public aid (the amount of which is subject to divergent interpretations), when the offsetting elements which are customarily required in order to safeguard the rules of competition applicable to investments are more than double those in the original plan. The amounts proposed by the French Government and Crédit Lyonnais are amply sufficient to offset the level of public aid, even if the high estimate of these made by the Commission (which is likely to be disputed) is accepted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: International carriage of passengers - Council Regulation (EEC) 684/92 of 16 March 1992

Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 684/92(1) states that "special regular services referred to in Article 2 (1.2), second subparagraph, (a), (b), (c) and (d), shall not require authorization if they are covered by a contract concluded between the organizer and the carrier."

Could the Commision state whether it is correct that special regular services which fall within the definition of a regular service contained in Article 2 (1.2), second subparagraph, (a), (b), (c) and (d), and do not require authorization ("if they are covered by a contract concluded between the organizer and the carrier") can systematically ply routes alongside existing regular services that do require authorization, thus taking away custom from the latter?

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1528/98

by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Road accidents involving lorries in the EU

1. Will the Commission state how many accidents involving lorries (vehicles over 3 500 kg) occur annually in the EU?

2. What measures have individual EU Member States introduced to reduce the number of road accidents involving lorries, and what effects have they had, in particular the Dutch law prohibiting overtaking by lorries on certain stretches of road?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behaf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

1. The Commission's CARE database of European accident statistics contains information on road accidents where injuries were reported.

Figures from the CARE database show that in 1995 there were 87 361 accidents with injuries where lorries over 3.5 tons were involved. It should be noted that this provisional figure is for 14 Member States excluding Finland as the Commission has not yet received statistics from that Member State for this category of accident.

2. The Commission is not in a position to examine the effect of all national or local actions aimed at reducing road accidents of lorries.

As far as Community legislation is concerned, the introduction of the speed limiter, requirements for front underrun protection, sideguards, spray suppressors, tachographs, roadworthiness tests and type approval standards are examples of measures aimed at reducing accidents. The effects of these separate measures, is however, very difficult to estimate.

The Dutch law to prohibit overtaking on certain stretches is a consequence of the introduction of the speed limiter which affects the speed at which lorries can overtake, with the associated risk of traffic flows being blocked. The reported results in terms of traffic fluidity are positive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Euro-Jus Programme

The Community project "Euro-Jus" involves local legal advisers working together with the Commission's offices in the Member States and providing citizens with objective and non-official information on their rights under Community law and the possibilities of enforcing them.

1. According to the information before me, this project seems to have attracted a lot of attention. Has the Commission any data on this?

2. Which budgetary headings are used to pay the costs of this project and how high are the costs of the network?

3. What criteria are used to select the "local legal advisers"?

4. Who are the local legal advisers for "Euro-Jus" in Austria?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

1. The Commission is gathering data on the Euro-Jus service and on how it is used by European citizens. Given that to date, Euro-Jus officers have not been in office for the same length of time in the various Member States and that they have worked different hours in each Member State, the Commission does not have harmonised or comparable data. As a rough guide, the number of questions put to the Euro-Jus officer in Sweden between May 1997 and April 1998 was 514. Between April and December 1997, the number of questions put in Spain was 792, while 1965 were put in Germany in 1997. In Austria, 217 written questions were registered in 1997. An average of 10 to 15 people contacted the Euro-Jus officer by telephone or directly by appointment during weekly consultation hours.

2. The Euro-Jus service is charged to budget item B-3-3000. It is directly financed from the budgets of the Commission representations in the Member States. In accordance with the political priorities of the Commission and at the request of the Ombudsman, the network was strengthened in 1998 by an increase in the appropriations allocated to the Euro-Jus service and the number of hours worked by Euro-Jus officers. The overall Euro-Jus budget for 1998 is ECU 552 000.

3. On the basis of a restricted invitation to tender, the Euro-Jus service contract is divided into lots which are distributed by Member State. The Commission selects the bid offering the best value for money, taking account of the following criteria: general quality of the bid, the solution found by candidates to a specific case, and the price.

Only moral or legal persons and who have supplied proof that they can carry out all the services to be provided are selected.

4. The name of the Euro-Jus officer in the Commission's Office in Vienna is being forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/98

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: Budget heading B-4113 - programmes for the integration of refugees - report on the implementation and selection of projects in 1997 - Annex 1: list of projects supported

Annex I of the report on the implementation and selection of projects in 1997, with regard to budget heading B-4113 - programmes for the integration of refugees, contains a list of projects selected for funding in 1997. The list of projects supported in Germany (points 10-24) give rise to the following questions:

What amounts were paid for the various projects?

What specific grants were made?

What percentage of the financing is accounted for by the European contribution?

Did the payments also cover staffing costs?

What form of control is there on the success for the grants made?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The 15 German pilot projects selected for funding in 1997 varied considerably in scope, and consequently the amounts of Community grants offered to these projects varied between 30 141 ECU and 320 000 ECU. According to the quality and scope of each project, and to the requests for funding submitted, the proportion of Community support varied between 31 % and 71 % of the total project costs. The average Community contribution to German pilot projects amounted to 50.4 %, and the sum of these contributions to 1.29 MECU.

Community contributions to projects are normally paid in three instalments. These contributions cover staff directly linked to the implementation of the projects selected.

As for the assessment of project results, each project proposal must include an appropriate evaluation system of the various stages of implementation. The second and third instalments of Community support will only be paid if the Commission has received and approved administrative, financial and activity reports submitted by the beneficiary within the deadlines indicated in the contractual agreement serving as a basis for the payment of funding. In addition, all the projects selected for funding and their results are followed up by the Task force on integration set up by the European council on refugees and exiles (ECRE) in the framework of their project "European network on the integration of refugees". After the completion of the projects, the Commission will also launch an evaluation.

Specific information and details concerning each of the German pilot projects selected for funding in 1997 is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/98

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Directive 86/278/EEC

When is the Commission going to revise Directive 86/278/EEC(1)? Will it confirm that it will extend a revised proposal to include limits for the concentrations in sewage sludge used in agriculture to pollutants such as chromium, selenium, arsenic, fluoride, molybdenum, cobalt dioxin, PCBs, AOX, PAH, chlorinated solvents and other organic chemicals? Will it also include in a revised proposal criteria for agricultural use in sewage sludge as called for by the European Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC(2))?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 1998)

In 1999 the Commission intends to propose a revision of Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.

At present it is not possible to indicate precisely whether the Commission's proposal will fix limit values for the elements and organic pollutants of anthropogenic origin that have been cited by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the Commission assures the Honourable Member that all the technical and economic elements necessary to ensure a high level of environmental protection will be duly taken into account in the proposal.

(1) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6.

(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0783/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Irregularity of waste disposal contract in Rome

On 9.5.1997 the Council of the XVth district of the city of Rome voted for the removal of toxic substances from the Zucchet plant referred to in question E-3006/97(1). The waste had still not been removed by 27.1.1998. On 30.12.1997 it was decided unofficially to replace GRM, the firm awarded the contract to remove the waste, by the Bizzaglia Eco company. On 26.1.1998 the tip was found to be completely unguarded, with the public having easy access to the toxic waste. Without the knowledge of the Council and by order of the President of the district, Giovanni Paris, a third company, Ecocentro Spa, had won a private tender to replace Bizzaglia Eco in disposing of the waste. As at 26.1.1998 however no contract had been concluded with Ecocentro Spa. On 11.6.1997 the DTV company had submitted a bid for the disposal worth Lit 249 000 000, far less than the contract awarded for Lit 476 000 000. DTV said it had not been able to participate in the final tender procedure.

Given this information can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has a letter been sent to the Italian authorities as announced in the reply to question E-3006/97?

2. Have there not in fact been serious irregularities in the public contract procedure?

3. Is further action not necessary?

4. What penalties do the Italian authorities risk incurring if they do not comply with the rules?

5. What is the Commission's general reaction?

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 55.