ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3242/98

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Council inactivity in the legislative process

In contrast to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union is not bound by set deadlines in the performance of its tasks pursuant to the Treaty Establishing the European Community (ECT). In the legislative process, as with other decisions, the time when a decision is taken is always at the discretion of the Council. In the past this has meant that in controversial and politically sensitive matters the Council has often been inactive, even when the Commission has submitted a proposal and Parliament has exercised its rights of codecision in accordance with the Treaty. In these cases of Council inactivity Community law merely allows the Commission to amend or withdraw its proposal (cf. Article 189a ECT).

In this context I should like to ask the Commission:

1. In how many instances in the last ten years has the Council adopted neither a favourable nor an unfavourable decision in respect of a Commission proposal and after the involvement of Parliament?

2. How many dossiers are older than the period of office of the current Commission, and how many are more than nine months old?

3. To which policy areas of the EC do the dossiers referred to in question 1 belong?

4. Does the Commission intend to submit to the next Intergovernmental Conference a proposal for inclusion in the EC Treaty of a clause establishing a timetable for Council decisions on Commission proposals or any other decision?

5. If not, what are the Commission's views on including in the EC treaty a deadline of, say, six or nine months for Council decisions?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat-General lists in which he will find detailed answers to the questions raised.

1. There are 280 proposals since 1 January 1988 transmitted to the Council, on which it has consulted Parliament but not taken a decision.

2. 68 of these proposals were transmitted to it before 31 December 1994; 205 of these proposals were transmitted to it before 31 December 1997 (i.e. over nine months ago).

3. With regard to policy areas, the Honourable Member is referred to the list mentioned above, where proposals are classified by sector.

4. No.

5. The Commission has always endeavoured to act in such a way that the legislator can take a decision on its proposals as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3622/98

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Discriminatory checks within the Schengen area

A programme was recently broadcast on Swedish television in which two TV reporters with foreign backgrounds travelled through the EU to test freedom of movement for individuals. It turned out that they were subjected to systematic checks both at borders and after they had entered the country where they intended to stay, the apparent reason being that they were originally of a non-European background. They were subjected to visual discrimination even though they were born in Sweden and are Swedish citizens. Human rights organizations throughout the Schengen area confirm this discrimination.

1. Is it the Commission's view that such systematic discrimination is the price to be paid for Schengen?

2. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the visual discrimination that results from having no checks at borders within Schengen?

3. Does the Commission consider that a "non-European appearance" is sufficient grounds for checks on individuals within the Schengen area?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

1. No.

2. I would refer the honourable Member to the answer from the Commission to Written Question P-2892/98 by Mrs Waddington(1).

3. No.

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 161.
91999E0145

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 145/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN to the Commission. EU aid to Rotenburg, Lower Saxony



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0142
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/99

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: Law on strays

Will the Commission please specify what EU funds have been earmarked for the Region of Tuscany to resolve the problem of stray animals and say what the EU intends to do to resolve this problem, which regards thousands of dogs?

Answer givern by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Community has legislation in the field of the protection of pet animals during transport, Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(1)) and on the use of dogs and cats in scientific experiments, Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(2).

Legislation on stray dogs and cats and their enforcement is still a matter within the competence of the Member States.

Following the above-mentioned principle the Commission has no intention to propose legislation in this field.

No funding programmes specific for control of stray dogs in the Tuscany Region have been set up by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0538/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union

At its June 1998 part-session the European Parliament debated and adopted the own-initiative report on the fish product canning industry and aquaculture in the European Union (A4-0137/98)(1), in the conclusions to which, inter alia, it declared that "the sardine industry represents an economic activity of major importance for many Community regions" and pointed out that the sector is in a state of crisis, which requires the urgent adoption of protection measures, such as:

"(...) establishment of a compensatory allowance for sardines, for the Community canning industry and the maintenance of balanced storage aid, to prevent price fluctuations in the market as a result of seasonal flows in product supply for the canning industry. Such aid will need to be paid direct to canners as and when they can justify payment of the minimum production price."

Can the Commission say what measures have been taken to comply with Parliament's request and tackle the grave crisis in the sardine canning industry?

(1) OJ C 210, 6.7.1998, p. 295.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 309/99 by David BOWE Radioactive waste



Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0088



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0309/99 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1999) Subject: Radioactive waste Does the Commission agree that the Member States should agree on uniform measurements and methods of reporting discoveries of orphan radioactive waste in order to achieve a clearer understanding of the extent of the problem?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/99

by Georges Garot (PSE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Unfair competition between French and Spanish tomato producers

I have received complaints from the tomato producers of southwest France (Marmande) who say they are the victims of unfair competition from their Spanish counterparts in the Almería region. According to the results of a study they have carried out the difference between the cost price of Spanish tomatoes and French tomatoes is due essentially to differences in labour costs caused by the employment of illegal immigrants who work without a contract. As a result, the continued existence of the French tomato producers' businesses is threatened. At the same time the number of producers in the Iberian Peninsula continues to grow, assisted by structural aid from the authorities (for water, greenhouse extensions, etc.) and Europe (structural funds).

Is the Commission aware of these distortions of competition which are the direct result of the completion of the single market and the lack of social harmonisation in the Union? Does it have the power, in particular as a result of the new provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which will shortly enter into force, to control illegal immigration more effectively? Lastly, can it consider the possibility of reparation in the form of compensation or a refusal to grant European aid in the event of social or indeed fiscal dumping?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 1999)

The Commission has contacted the Honourable Member to obtain a copy of the study quoted, which must be examined before any position can be taken on whether the situation described suggests a breach of Community law. Once the Commission has received the study, it will answer the substance of the Honourable Member's question as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0523/99

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Interview in the 18-25 December 1998 issue of "Nederlands Gemeente" magazine with Mr Landaburu, Director at the Commission, on Member States' net contributions

In its 18-25 December 1998 issue, the magazine "Nederlands Gemeente" published an interview with Mr Landaburu, Director at the Commission's DG for Regional Policy and Cohesion. According to the title of the article, this senior EU civil servant criticises the Netherlands, saying that "the net payers are very arrogant".

1. Does the Commission endorse the statements made by Mr Landaburu, assuming they were correctly represented?

2. Does the Commission consider that it is part of the duties of a Commission official to make statements on the attitude of individual Member States as regards their contribution to the EU budget?

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

(27 April 1999)

1. The remarks attributed to the Director-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion were made at an informal meeting with a group of journalists from the regional press concerned principally with negotiations on Agenda 2000 and the many difficulties which were then in evidence. At no time during the discussion was there any intention to denigrate the Member States in the way referred to, but mention was certainly made of the "hard line" being taken by the net contributors and of the fact that their interpretation of the concept of stabilisation differed diametrically from that of the "cohesion countries".

2. In the interests of transparency and information to the press, and hence to the European citizen, it does not appear inappropriate to refer to the content and difficulty of the discussions between the Member States on both the revenue and expenditure sides of the Community budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Belgium does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Leonardo

The contract with AGENOR as the technical assistance bureau for the Leonardo programme has not been extended by the Commission.

1. Can the Commission say why it has persistently rejected all accusations and inquiries concerning the administration of Leonardo?

2. Can it explain how it came to the conclusion that there was nothing criminal in the irregularities found in the administration of Leonardo, when the UCLAF has identified considerable damage to the Communities?

3. What does it think of the impression which has arisen that it did not proceed satisfactorily or conscientiously in its appraisal of the TAB for Leonardo (Agenor)?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

1. The Technical Assistance Bureau (TAB) for the Leonardo programme has been audited annually by the competent Director-General, leading to the non-reimbursement of expenditure deemed to be ineligible. An audit has also been performed by the Commission's Financial Control, following which Financial Control recommended that the contract with Agenor should not be renewed unless it was amended and unless the TAB was radically overhauled (including replacement of the director). In the meantime, the contract with Agenor was merely extended, with the insertion of more stringent terms, for two successive four-month periods, the last of which expired on 31 January 1999. The audits in question did not call into question the programme as such, but rather the internal operation of the bureau that assisted the Commission.

2. The Financial Control's audit report, with the replies from the competent Directorate-General, was finalised in December 1998. The Commission did not come to the conclusion mentioned by the Honourable Member. Indeed, on 10 February 1999, it drew the attention of the judicial authorities (Brussels public prosecutor) to four cases with potentially criminal implications (two of these had given rise to a refusal to grant reimbursement by the competent Directorate-General, following its own audits).

3. At the end of each of the two first years, the competent Directorate-General performed an audit, following which any expenditure deemed to be unjustified was not reimbursed to Agenor. Likewise, the third year was audited by Financial Control. Following these a posteriori audits, the Commission had, during the first temporary extension of the contract, tightened up various terms of the contract with Agenor. Finally, it did not renew the contract for a fourth year and would only have renewed the contract expiring on 31 January 1999 if the TAB restructuring operation it had requested Agenor to perform had provided the assurance that the irregularities ascertained would be eliminated.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0013/99

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 1999)

Subject: Misinformation in the European Communities' official publication concerning urban pilot projects

In the European Communities' official publication on Urban Pilot Projects, phase II, funded under Article 10 of the ERDF, the Granada-Albayzín project is illustrated with a photograph (p. 31) of a local craftwork company which has neither received nor requested financial support under the urban project in question.

Both the use of this photograph and the caption give the impression that there is a link with this European project, a fact which the owner denies; how does the Commission intend to correct these misleading statements? Does the Commission know whether this may have given rise to other irregularities?

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

(8 March 1999)

The publication entitled "Article 10 European Regional Development Fund, Urban Pilot Projects Phase II, 1997-99 Project Descriptions"(1) has been produced to give an introductory summary of the 26 Urban pilot projects selected in 1997. It is being produced in all official Community languages and is intended to inform a wide audience about the innovative actions taking place in European cities with Community support.

At the time of the preparation and publication of the document, the pilot projects were just beginning, so the document focuses on the aims and proposed actions, rather than the results of the projects. All the illustrative material has been supplied by the project managers to indicate the kind of activities that would be undertaken. In this instance, the project manager has confirmed that the image is intended to offer a general example of arts and crafts activities in the area, as is conveyed by the caption "Local crafts: the production of Granada's traditional ceramics", rather than a more explicit reference to specific action. The Commission considers that the document is indicative rather than misleading.

In addition to this general publication concerning project descriptions, the Commission also publishes annual reports on the pilot projects which give more information about the progress of the projects and the lessons and ideas emerging from the overall programme.

(1) ISBN: 92-828-3940-0.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0443/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement and cooperation relations

The current EU Morocco fisheries agreement is about to end, and in view of its importance for the Community fishing industry and its implications for employment, I should like to know bilateral relations context in which the new fisheries agreement is to be negotiated.

Would the Commission therefore provide precise details of the current state of cooperation relations between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco, the future outlook for these relations, the benefits granted by the EU to Morocco and the aid which that country receives?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The Agreement on cooperation in the sea fisheries sector between the Community and Morocco entered into force on 1 December 1995 for a period of four years. It will therefore expire on 30 November 1999.

Under this agreement the Community obtained fishing opportunities in Moroccan waters in return for which it granted Morocco compensation of EUR 500 million over the four years, broken down into financial compensation (EUR 355 million), cooperation in the fisheries sector (EUR 121 million), scientific research in the fisheries sector (EUR 16 million) and maritime training (EUR 8 million).

In accordance with the provisions of the agreement, the Community transferred EUR 126 million to Morocco for the period 1 December 1998 to 30 November 1999 (financial compensation EUR 80 million; fisheries cooperation EUR 40 million; fisheries research EUR 4 million; maritime training EUR 2 million). Shipowners authorised to carry out fishing activities under the agreement also pay fees in relation to the value of the target species and the size of their ships.

The Community and Morocco signed a Euro-Mediterranean association agreement on 26 February 1996.

On a commercial level, the Community exempts imports of industrial products originating in Morocco from customs duties or charges having equivalent effect and from import restrictions or measures with equivalent effect. A number of Moroccan agricultural products, including fisheries products, may also be imported into the Community duty free or at a reduced tariff.

With respect to financial cooperation, Morocco benefits from the MEDA programme which promotes Morocco's integration into the Euro-Mediterranean economic area by supporting economic transition and facilitates harmonious development of the country by contributing to better socio-economic balance. A total of EUR 454 million was allocated to Morocco under this programme in the form of budget funds for the period 1996-98.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Urban issues

In May 1997, the European Commission published its communication entitled "Towards an urban agenda in the European Union" (COM(97) 197 final). That communication serves as a good basis for an overall analysis of the way in which urban issues are tackled under the various Community policies at local authority level.

In the resolution of the European Parliament of 2 July 1998, A4-0172/98(1), the European Parliament closely connects urban issues with the maintenance and strengthening of economic and social cohesion and emphasises the importance of the reform of the Structural Fund Regulations, as the first phase of the European urban agenda. The proposals set out by the European Commission treat the discussion of urban issues under the eligibility criteria for Objective 2. On several occasions, the Commission has confirmed that urban issues can be approached in a horizontal manner within the corresponding policies and programmes of the Community Support Frameworks and the Single Programming Document under Objectives 1 and 2. How does the Commission intend to implement this approach?

The horizontal dimension of urban issues means, at the same time, close coordination and synergy between the different Community policies, in particular regional policies, if they are to have an impact at urban level. Has the Commission identified which implementing measures and financial mechanisms are needed to secure such coordination and synergy?

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

(10 March 1999)

On 3 February 1999, the Commission adopted a working paper entitled "The Structural funds and their coordination with the Cohesion fund - draft guidance for programmes in the period 2000-2006"(2).

This made it clear that in both objective 1 regions end objective 2 areas the various programming documents under the structural funds should include integrated measures for urban development. The regeneration of disadvantaged urban areas which could receive special support, within objective 2, through an integrated territorial approach similar to that developed by the urban initiative, will therefore represent one, but certainly not the only way to address urban problems within the new programming period.

All these measures will make a vital contribution to an integrated approach to regional development and conversion.

As far as the horizontal dimension and a closer co-ordination of urban matters are concerned, the Commission recently adopted the communication "Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action"(3). This indicated that an interservice group in the Commission will continue to examine the urban implications of Community policies and instruments with a view to further strengthening their urban sensitivity and integration. It will in particular monitor progress in the implementation of the framework for action.

(1) OJ C 226, 20.7.1998, p. 36.

(2) SEC(99) 103.

(3) COM(98) 605 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/99

by John Iversen (PSE) and Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 1999)

Subject: Youth team members in Denmark enslaved by contract terms

There have unfortunately been examples in Denmark of young football players under 18 years of age signing contracts with football clubs under which they are treated like serfs. The numbers of junior and youth contracts have increased in recent years. At present, a player must be 16, but the age limit is to be lowered to 15 next summer. The likely result of this is more unfortunate cases of young people being tied to their employers.

Some of the youngsters who break off their contracts before they expire end up having to pay hefty fines, and high transfer fees prevent them from furthering their footballing careers.

Does the Commission consider such contracts, under which youths are treated like serfs, to be compatible with European legal practice in this area following the Bosman judgment?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 1999)

The question asked by the two Honourable Members would seem rather to come under Danish national law. As Community law would not seem to cover the contracts concerned, the Danish authorities must examine the compatibility of such contracts with national law. The latter should take account of the terms of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work(1).

The effects of the Bosman judgement(2) apply only to transfers between Member States. The Court of Justice ruling requires that in such cases the contracts must not contain clauses limiting freedom of movement.

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2) Case C-415/93, [1995] ECR I-4921.