ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/98

by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) , Hiltrud Breyer (V) , Charles Goerens (ELDR) , Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) , Claudia Roth (V) , Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Visa requirements for Bulgaria and Romania - expert reports

Several commissions of experts have recently visited Bulgaria and Romania to consider the visa problem there. No reports have yet been published on these visits. If such expert reports already exist, when will the Commission be submitting them to Parliament? What conclusions has the Commission reached in this matter? If a report or reports of this kind have not yet been drawn up, when will they be compiled?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/98

by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Council

(18 September 1998)

Subject: Code of Conduct for European companies operating in third countries

In paragraph 20 of its resolution (A4-400/96)(1) of 12 December 1996 on human rights throughout the world in 1995-1996 and the Union's human rights policy, Parliament "calls on the Commission and the Council rapidly to submit a proposal on a Code of Conduct for European companies operating in third countries which obliges them to respect human rights in all their forms (civil, social, economical, environmental), including mechanisms of control and sanction on the grounds of the existing OECD proposal".

What steps has the Council taken in this respect?

Reply

(27 November 1998)

The Council duly noted the European Parliament's Resolution of 12 December 1996 on "human rights throughout the world in 1995-1996 and the Union's human rights policy".

The Council reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that European companies respect human rights within the Union and in third countries. However, no specific proposal for the adoption of a Code of Conduct for European companies, which obliges them to respect human rights including control and sanction mechanisms, has yet been put to the Council.

(1) OJ C 20, 20.1.1997, p. 161.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: The European Parliament and Parkinson's disease

What initiatives have been undertaken and how much funding has been made available by the European Union for the purpose of studying, combating and relieving the suffering caused by Parkinson's disease?

Has the Commission any plans for a programme to meet the needs arising from the treatment and the effects of Parkinson's disease?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission has supported activities on neurodegenerative disorders and informal carers since 1995. However, so far no project presented on Parkinson's disease has met the criteria required for financial support. The European Parkinson's Disease Association has received financial support from the programme on integration of disabled people into the labour market, in order to analyse the needs of people and their families living with this disease and to find the appropriate response.

The new "paving" communication on the development of public health policy(1) proposes a move away from the disease-specific approach towards a more horizontal approach to public health. However, Article 152 of the Treaty of Amsterdam states clearly that the way the Member States organise and deliver their health care systems is the responsibility of the Member States.

Research into Parkinson's disease has always had a place in the Community¢s biomedical research programmes (Biomed). It received funding under Biomed 1 and there are now four Biomed 2 projects specifically on the subject. These range from the genetic and molecular approach to treatment by cellular grafting or functional neurosurgery. Some of these projects have already yielded significant results. The disease is also covered partially or indirectly by many other projects.

It should be given at least as much priority under topic 1 of the future fifth framework programme, and is in fact one of the few diseases expressly mentioned in the programme, in the key action on "ageing". It also ties in perfectly with at least two general actions: chronic and degenerative diseases, and neurosciences.

(1) COM(98) 230 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3053/98

by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Alleged irregularities during recruitment competition COM/A/8-9 - 10-11 - 12/98

On the basis of the available information, it would appear that the proceedings of the recruitment competition which recently took place in all 15 Member States were severely affected by several irregularities. Apart from the wrong address given to the candidates attending the examinations in Milan, the insufficient number of test-papers prepared for the Rome competition and the use of portable phones, which was apparently allowed in several locations, the most astonishing episode occurred in Brussels. A candidate who reported to the invigilators that draft questions and answers were available to certain candidates before the competition was threatened with exclusion from the competition instead of being helped to prove his allegations.

Does the Commission consider that, on the basis of the abovementioned data, an inquiry should be carried out in order to ascertain the responsibilities of the officials involved both in the leaks and in the maladministration of the competition proceedings?

Does the Commission believe that, if these allegations prove to be true, the competition should be considered null and void and consequently held again?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3148/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Council

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning the prohibition of the advertising of cars and other products

Is it true, as claimed in several press reports (including one by the Bild am Sonntag on 19 July 1998), that the Council is considering the possibility of prohibiting or restricting the advertising of motor vehicles?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?

Is the Council also considering the possibility of prohibiting the advertising of any other products or services?

If so, in what form are these deliberations taking place, and what action is the Council planning?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council has to date received no proposal from the Commission for a Directive prohibiting or restricting the advertísing of motor vehicles.

As the Honourable Member must certainly be aware, Codes of Conduct, applied on a voluntary basis in certain Member States, encourage advertising agencies and the motor vehicle industry to limit advertising which is considered likely to act as an incentive to motorists to drive dangerously.

The Council is not aware of any Commission initiatives to introduce such a code on a Community scale or, a fortiori, to propose mandatory provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/98

by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Asbestos

Will the Commission urgently draw up proposals for a total ban on the import and manufacture of chrysotile (white) asbestos in view of the grave risk to health posed by the use of this substance which, together with other forms of asbestos, is responsible for the deaths of more than 3500 people every year in the United Kingdom alone?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

There already exists a significant body of Community legislation which aims to protect the health of workers and the public from the health effects of asbestos. All types of asbestos fibres, except white (or chrysotile) asbestos, are already banned by current Community legislation. In addition, there is a ban on fourteen categories of products containing chrysotile and strict Community controls on exposure of workers to asbestos and on release of asbestos fibres to the environment.

Even though much has already been accomplished, it is apparent that more now needs to be done to tighten up the Community legislation on the marketing and use of asbestos-containing products. There are now nine Member States which have introduced national bans on chrysotile which go beyond the current Community legislation. This represents a significant disruption to the internal market which requires a solution at Community level.

Also, various national organisations, including the Health and safety executive in the United Kingdom, have made very disturbing projections about the numbers of deaths which are likely to be attributable to asbestos over the next few decades. However, it is important to note that these figures relate to past exposures to mixed asbestos types, including the fibres which have already been banned. It would be wrong to use these statistics alone to justify a ban on the marketing and use of chrysotile because such a ban would not lead to a lower risk of exposure for workers to asbestos which is already in place, nor would it reduce the number of deaths which are occurring today as a result of past exposure to asbestos. Possible contamination from asbestos in existing buildings (e.g. in relation to maintenance activities and asbestos removal operations) will remain an important cause of exposure to workers for many years.

However, taking all the above into account, based on current scientific knowledge about the health risks of chrysotile asbestos, the Commission is preparing a draft proposal for a European-wide ban on chrysotile asbestos (with some exceptions and temporary derogations), which will be discussed with Member State experts in the near future. The details of the final draft will of course depend on those discussions, and on contacts with the Parliament, interest groups and on the outcome of continuing scientific considerations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Implementation of directives incorporated into national law

Does the Commission monitor the extent to which directives on social and employment issues are incorporated into national law?

Does it monitor the application of, and compliance with, the directives thus transposed?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Headage payments in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of recent serious problems in the mountain regions in the West of Ireland relating to headage payments (compensatory allowances), where sometimes a husband and wife have separate herds which are grazed on commonage as is the tradition in such systems? Can the Commission state whether or not such common grazing is in violation of the conditions for headage payments under the scheme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 1998)

The Commission is responsible for the approval of the national headage schemes according to Community rules, but not for the approval of individual applications which falls under the competence of the national authorities. Consequently, the Commission is not aware of the specific case of granting headage payments to both husband and wife for separate herds grazing on commonage to which the Honourable Member refers. Also the control missions undertaken to check the correct implementation and application of the schemes in the Member States give no indications on irregularities in the application of the approved headage scheme.

The general possibility to grant headage payments for animals grazing on commonage is compatible with Community law and has been approved for Ireland. In the Irish scheme, the applicants have either to occupy and farm at least 3 hectares of utilised agricultural land which may include commonage or to have grazing rights in less favoured areas which are equivalent to a farming area of 3 hectares in order to be eligible for headage payments. If both husband and wife manage completely independent farms in less favoured areas and fulfil this condition, each of them is eligible for headage payments from the viewpoint of Community law. However, national provisions set a limitation on separate applications in the case of two or more people managing one or more herds as a single unit. In such a case, they should be treated as one joint applicant and their herds as one joint herd for the purpose of the headage scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Contractors

Can the government of a Member State of the European Union require a contractor resident in another Member State to register with the official authorities before being able to exercise his profession?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Two different scenarios should be distinguished here. In the first, a foreign entrepreneur wishes to practise his profession on a permanent basis in another Member State through a secondary establishment dependent on the main establishment in his Member State of residence. This situation is covered by Article 52 of the EC Treaty (right of establishment). Since everyone is obliged to register with the authorities, irrespective of their nationality or place of establishment within the Community, this requirement is not incompatible with the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 52.

In the second scenario, an entrepreneur practises his profession temporarily in another Member State without being established there. This situation is covered by Article 59 of the EC Treaty (freedom to provide services), which prohibits measures constituting discriminatory or disproportionate restrictions on that freedom. Generally speaking, regulations to the effect that all entrepreneurs must first be licensed (or registered), whatever their place of origin, are incompatible with Article 59 of the Treaty unless there are in the occupational field concerned compelling reasons for their existence associated with the general interest, unless rules in the country where the service provider is established do not already serve the general interest and unless the same result cannot be achieved through less rigorous rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: The ca. 3 000 Europeans detained in foreign jails

The European organisation "Fair Trials Abroad" reports that some 3 000 European citizens are being held in prisons in third countries.

Most European prisoners, it says, are held in Morocco (472), the USA (470), Australia (176), Thailand (170), Brazil (146), Venezuela (133), Switzerland (102), Ecuador (74), Colombia (64) and India (63). Some 125 people are in prison in Russia and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. A further ca. 1 500 persons are in prisons in various developing countries.

1. Is there any form of cooperation at European level which ensures a fair trial and reasonable treatment in prison for these people, or is there any form of consultation between the EU Member States with regard to prisoners jailed in the same country?

2. Does the Commission play a coordinating role in this respect, for example through the local EU ambassadors?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of Commission

(22 October 1998)

The Union is concerned with the situation in prisons throughout the world, particularly where the detention conditions of nationals of its Member States are involved. Where it considers that the situation justifies action under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), it can make representations to the authorities of the countries concerned.

Furthermore, under Article 8c of the Treaty on European Union and a Council Decision of 19 December 1995, every citizen of the European Union living or staying in a non-member country is entitled to the consular protection of any Member State's diplomatic or consular representation in that country.

The Council's group on consular matters closely monitors the issue of EU citizens imprisoned in non-member countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Treatment of Irish third-level students

Is the Commission aware that returning Irish emigrant families (net immigration to Ireland last year was some 30 000) are being discriminated against when they try to put their Irish-born children through third-level education systems, since even though the students were born in Ireland, hold EU passports, are registered voters and their families have no address other than in Ireland, they are deemed to be "overseas students" or non-EU citizens under an EU regulation because they fail to meet the three-year residency requirement before applying to university with the result that they are being made to pay full tuition fees, etc? Is there any provision in EU law to ensure equal treatment for such people?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The level of tuition fees paid by students in order to follow higher education courses and the criteria for grants or other financial assistance applied in the Member States, are for the Member States themselves to determine.

Community law, as interpreted by the Court of justice, imposes on Member States a duty to apply the same criteria and levels of fees to Community nationals as they do to their own nationals, on the basis of the principle of non discrimination on nationality grounds.

The principle of non discrimination on nationality grounds also covers possible differentiated treatment between nationals who did not use their right to free movement within the Community and those nationals who did use this right (e.g. Irish nationals who returned to Ireland after emigration to another Member State). However, this principle does not cover the case of Irish nationals who return to Ireland after emigration to third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2427/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Construction of high-speed rail links

It appears that some of the sections of the high-speed rail link which is currently being built in southern Europe will not be finished on time, in particular the Perpignan-Montpellier section. This could defeat the efforts which have been made along most of the route and will also prevent the area concerned from enjoying the economic benefits to be derived from the existence of this major rail link.

Is the Commission planning to take any action to speed up the construction of the sections which are behind schedule, so as to ensure that this major Community transport link is completed on time?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1998)

The high speed train (HST) railway line linking Madrid-Barcelona to Perpignan and Montpellier, the so-called HST South, was identified by the Essen European Council as one of the 14 priority projects for development of the Trans-European networks (TENs) on which the Commission should concentrate its efforts.

This project benefits from Community financial support through the Cohesion fund and the TEN-T budget line. It is however true that, although the project is progressing quite well, notably on Spanish territory, the Perpignan-Montpellier section may be delayed and thereby temporarily reduce the overall benefits of the whole project.

The Commission keeps in close contact with the French government in order to get precise information on the construction timetable for this specific section. However, the timetable and all other relevant factors remain the responsibility of the French authorities. The importance of the Perpignan-Montpelier link was emphasised in the Report of the High Level Group on TENs Public Private Partnerships and, most recently, in the Commission's report to the Cardiff European Council on progress on the 14 priority projects.

The Commission will continue its efforts to speed up the realisation of the entire project, from Madrid to Montpellier. By the end of 1998, Réseau Ferré de France, responsible for French national railway infrastructure, is expected to issue a plan setting out the new railway priorities in France, and the Commission will continue to emphasise, in this context, the importance of the High Speed Train South.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/98

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Council

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Illegal placement of foreign workers in the German construction industry

Is the Council aware that Dutch companies are illegally arranging employment for English workers on German building sites?

To what extent does the Council intend to take action on this matter?

Reply

(16 November 1998)

The Council has no information on the points mentioned in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/98

by Hedy d'Ancona (PSE) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Trial against representatives of the Greek Rainbow Party

On 14 October, Vasilis Romas, Costas Tasopoulos, Petros Vasiliades and Pavlos Voskopoulos will go on trial in Florina (Greece). These leading members of the Greek-Macedonian Rainbow Party (Venezito) are charged under article 192 of the Greek penal code. They are charged with having incited "mutual hatred between citizens" in September 1995 by displaying a sign in two languages (Greek and Macedonian) indicating the name of the party and the local section. After the sign had been removed by the local police, the local party office was attacked by a mob led by the mayor of Florina.

The official charge is that the combination of words used and "the fact that they were in a foreign language, and more specifically in a Slavic language, provoked and incited discord between various sections of the population in the region" and harked back to a "former terrorist organization of Slavic-speakers".

Venizito is an officially recognized political party which has twice participated in elections in Greece including in the 1994 European elections.

Is the Council aware of these facts and of the forthcoming trial against this political party? Does the Council consider that, in view of the criminal proceedings against the Rainbow Party, there can be said to be a breach of international treaty provisions which also apply to Greece? What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that inter alia the fundamental freedom of choice of language is also respected in Greece?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply given to Question No E-1998/98.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3555/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: St. Teresa di Lerici sailing school

On 30 December 1993, the local authority in Lerici approved the above project, financed by the Liguria regional authority and the Community's Reneval programme.

On 16 April 1997, work on the project was completed for the local authority in Lerici.

To date, five years after the funds for the project were approved and 18 months after work on the project was completed, the local authority has still not managed to make the sailing school operational. Furthermore, the fact that the school has remained unused for an extended period has led to the deterioration of the buildings, which have also been damaged by vandals.

1. Is the Commission aware of the reasons for this disgraceful delay and does it know where responsibility for the delay lies?

2. Is it in a position to assess whether the expenditure on the implementation of the project tallies with the funds made available?

3. Can it state how much funding was made available for the project under the Reneval programme?

4. Do the rules in force stipulate a deadline for the implementation of a project once aid has been granted?

5. What are the consequences of a deadline not being observed?

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

(10 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.