ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/99

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Reduction of the areas eligible for assistance in West Germany including Berlin

In July 1999 the Commission decided to reduce the area designated by the Federal Government as eligible for assistance in the West German Länder and Berlin from 23,4 % to 17,6 % and to initiate proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany to examine this assistance.

1. Will the Commission reconsider its position, on the basis of infringement of the principle of equality, and consider leaving the assisted area based on a 23,4 % ceiling?

2. If the Commission considers that a return to the 23,4 % ceiling is impossible, could it envisage a joint agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany on the approved area for assistance which is appreciably higher than 17,6 %?

3. How does the Commission view the proposal that the previous transitional solution should be retained, whereby consideration could be given to applications for assistance made before a district was excluded from the areas eligible for assistance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The first two questions are at the moment being closely scrutinised as part of state aid investigation No C 47/99. All the grounds that were taken into consideration by the Commission in initiating proceedings are given in the relevant decision, which was published in the Official Journal(1).

With a view to achieving the objective of cohesion and in the light of the forthcoming enlargement, the Commission has decided to reduce regional aid coverage in the Community to 42,7 %. For Germany, this means a reduction to 34,9 %.

The relative reduction in coverage in Germany is smaller than that for the Community as a whole.

The figure of 34,9 % applies both to the areas covered by Article 87(3)(a) (ex-Article 92) of the EC Treaty and to those covered by Article 87(3)(c). On the basis of socio-economic data, a population coverage of 17,3 % was set for Article 87(3)(a) areas (five new Länder) and one of 17,6 % for Article 87(3)(c) areas (assisted areas in western Germany and Berlin).

This figure was calculated using an objective method that was applied equally to all Member States and is described in Annex III to the guidelines on national regional aid(2). The Commission also took account of several objectives of the Treaty and, in the interests of the general good, weighed them against one another. This did not suggest any unfair discrimination between the different situations in the individual Member States.

The third question likewise relates to a ongoing notification procedure (No 209/99). The Commission is unable at the moment to comment on the transitional arrangements for the areas to be excluded from the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme in question since the Commission is awaiting the reaction of the German Government.

(1) OJ C 340, 27.11.1999.

(2) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Commission's approach to employment policy

Dagens Nyheter of 8 December 1999 reported on an internal agreement between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and her Director-General Allan Larsson on the division of responsibilities between them for the Commission's work on employment matters. There has been debate in Sweden on the extent to which the conflict between the Commissioner and the Director-General might be ascribed to their differing administrative backgrounds. Mr Larsson has now announced his departure from his present post this spring.

Are there any political differences between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and the Director-General, Mr Larsson over the Commission's approach to employment policy?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question P-2670/99 by Mr Hernandez Mollar(1).

There are no political differences between the Member in charge of Employment and social affairs and the Director general of the Employment and social affairs Directorate general over the Commission's approach to employment policy.

(1) See page 100.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2156/99

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Utilisation of structural funds by the Latium Regional Council

Following the reform of the Structural Funds, it would be useful for regional councils in Italy in particular the Latium Regional Council to reorganise their affairs (inter alia taking the lead from examples of good practice identified in other Member States) so as to make it easier for local companies to gain access to such funding. Over recent years a low rate of utilisation of Community funds has been recorded in the Latium region.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether it can supply details of the utilisation of structural funds to date by the Latium Regional Council, including the uses to which they have been put, in respect of Objectives 2, 3, 4 and 5b;

2. whether there are any studies or documents highlighting examples of good practice in the utilisation of structural funds in other Member States;

3. its general opinion of the utilisation of structural funds in Italy (in particular, in the Latium region), inter alia with reference to the situation in other Member States.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

1. According to the latest information available from the Italian authorities, the state of play regarding the implementation of programmes in the Lazio region is as follows (figures at 30 June 1999)(1).

>TABLE>

2. The Commission has to date issued four publications describing key projects carried out with Structural Fund support(2). Other booklets on certain Member States are currently being prepared; one on the United Kingdom is scheduled for the end of 1999.

In addition, information concerning the most significant projects carried out in individual Member States (success stories) is available on the Inforegio website (http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int).

3. Under the partnership approach, the Commission takes every possible step to ensure that full use is made of the resources available from the Structural Funds. Although Italy's administrative procedures are somewhat slow, it must be acknowledged that the country has achieved undeniable progress in implementing its structural programmes in recent years. This effort to improve matters must, however, be sustained, particularly in view of the new programming period and the new management mechanisms, which hinge on a greater degree of subsidiarity.

It should be pointed out that, in terms of its implementation capacity, the Lazio region has achieved the average rate for Italian non-Objective 1 regions.

(1) The figures refer to the commitments and payments made to final recipients, expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the programmes approved under each objective.

(2) The publications concerned are: Job challenge: ten innovative projects tell their stories ISBN 92-828-4241-X; Regional success stories: profiles of 36 projects in Europe ISBN 92-827-6539-3; Deutschlandreise Projekte der EU-Regionalforderung ISBN 92-828-2680-5; Tour de France des régions 27 projets soutenus par les Fonds structurels ISBN 92-828-2678-3.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/99

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination among pigeon fanciers in the border region between the Netherlands and Belgium

It used to be possible for pigeon fanciers from the Netherlands to join an association in Belgium. However, a few years ago this possibility was abolished, precisely at a time when Europe is becoming increasingly united. The ban was imposed by the Belgian Pigeon Fanciers' Federation, and is felt by residents of the border region to be inconvenient. Pigeon fanciers wish to be able to compete with one another irrespective of their place of residence, as they used to in the past.

According to information from the Commission, pigeon races are organised through pigeon fanciers' associations, and it depends on a pigeon fancier's place of residence whether he can join one of these in a region of Belgium or in the Netherlands. According to the Commission, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciers' association is intended to take account of the distances which pigeons are required to fly during a competition.

We dispute this residence criterion. The border region is a single region. The distance which pigeons have to fly is virtually the same if they are released, for example, from De Clinge in the Netherlands or De Klinge in Belgium. We therefore wish pigeon fanciers who are resident in the Netherlands to be allowed to join pigeon fanciers' associations in Belgium and vice versa.

Will the Commission take the necessary measures to secure a lifting of the current ban? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission and to the Honourable Member, the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciers' association is laid down by both the Belgian Pigeon Fanciers' Federation and the Dutch Pigeon Fanciers' Federation.

In this context, and regardless of whether the criterion is compatible or not with the principle of the freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 (ex-Article 59) of the EC Treaty (assuming that we are dealing here with an economic activity), this situation does not seem to be attributable to the public authorities of these two Member States.

The direct effect of Article 49 of the EC Treaty is that individuals can invoke it in national courts against the Member State and the public authorities to prevent the application of a national regulation which is contrary to the above principle. They can also invoke it against organisations which collectively regulate a professional sector, which could include a federation which regulates an economic activity.

On the other hand, the Commission can institute proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty only in respect of regulations laid down by the public authorities of a Member State. From a formal point of view, therefore, the Commission does not have the power to respond to the Honourable Member's request.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2621/99

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Bringing the rules of the Spanish Swimming Federation allowing no more than two non-Spanish players to play in the national water polo league into line with Community law

Article 20 of the rules of the Royal Spanish Swimming Federation stipulates that Clubs taking part in open competitions may obtain licences for two players whose nationality is other than Spanish mldr.

Bearing in mind that the league is non-professional, does this restriction comply with Community law when applied to players who are nationals of the Member States?

Does this restriction comply with Community law if the players in question are nationals of the Member States employed under labour contracts?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2000)

The Court of justice has, with the Bosman judgement(1), confirmed that Community law provisions on free movement are applicable to professional sports and, in particular, that Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement of workers applies to the rules of sporting associations. Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match is therefore contrary to Community law.

Amateurs, that is to say people who are not practising sport as an economic activity, are not covered by that judgement.

However, the Commission is of the opinion that the rule of a sporting association which limits the number of amateur players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match is also contrary to Community law, and notably to Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community(2). That provision states that Community workers are to be granted the same social and tax advantages as national workers. The Court has ruled on several occasions that the provision applies to leisure activities(3) and it is indisputable that practising sport as an amateur is a leisure activity.

Whether or not the sport practised by amateurs is an economic activity has to be judged on the basis of the characteristics of the activity.

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

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(3) Case C-334/94 [ECR] 1996, I-1307.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/99

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Application of the Packaging Directive to ornamental plant growing

It is not possible to decide on the basis of either Directive 94/62/EC(1) or of the Commission's interpretative memorandum of 10 June 1999 whether flower pots do, or do not, constitute packaging within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Directive or, indeed, whether they fall within the scope of the Directive at all. As a result, each Member State has to decide itself which flower pots are clearly functional and which are used primarily as packaging. The situation thus varies from one Member State to another. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Packaging Directive, as specified in Article 1 thereof, is to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Is the Commission not worried that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to serious distortion of competition amongst ornamental plant growers in the various Member States?

Will it clarify whether flower pots that are not intended to remain with the plant for the whole of its life do, or do not, constitute packaging? Is it possible to interpret the Directive in such a way that no flower pots of any kind are included within its scope?

Will the Commission indicate which Member States regard flower pots as packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC, and which do not?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The definition of packaging has proved difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots. The Commission is fully aware that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to market distortion. For that reason, the Commission has been working on the issue with experts of Member States. The outcome of these discussions is that it would be useful to complement the current definition by a new technical guidance annexe to the Directive. This technical guidance would be based on the results of the exchange of opinions held in the frame of a structured dialogue between all those involved in the packaging chain Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and consumers.

The definition of packaging in Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, can only be interpreted by the Court of justice.

An exhaustive list of the different interpretation of flower pots as packaging in the Member States is not currently available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2713/99

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Human rights violations in Iran

13 members of the Jewish community in Shiraz (Navid Balazadeh, Nedjat Borukim, Farhad Suleh, Djavid Beit Jagub, Asher Zadmehr, Nasser Jaghublui, Ramin Farsam, Ramin Nemati, Sharoch Pakriahad, Farsad Kashi, Dani and Omid Teflin) were arrested in September 1999. On 31 August 1999 the writer Said Biabanaki was also arrested.

How does the Commission view these arrests? Is it prepared to take up the above cases and make representations to the Iranian Government, drawing attention to the plight of these detainees?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2713/99, E-2714/99 and E-2715/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2000)

The Commission follows with concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights are always raised by the Union. This was most recently the case of the meeting of the Troika with the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 December 1999.

The Commission is also involved in the demarches made by the Union to Iran in this respect. A number of demarches were made concerning the 13 Iranian Jews by the Union Troika as well as by individual Member States in the autumn of 1999. A Union Troika demarche regarding the reported death sentences on four students took place on 3 October 1999.

The possibilities for the Union to influence the situation in Iran are relatively limited due to the absence of any contractual relationship and the modest level of bilateral exchange. Nevertheless, the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, as it seeks to improve its ties with the Union and other partners. To be effective, however, such pressure which should be measured, in order not to create an impression of foreign interference.

In the case of the 13 Iranian Jews, Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a fair and just trial. It has even been suggested that they may be released in the national interest . Iranian authorities are undoubtedly also aware of the strong negative international reaction that would follow any executions of student leaders.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination in the workplace

Would the Commission please state for each Member State whether there are laws forbidding discrimination in the workplace on the basis of: a) race, b) religion, c) gender, d) sexual orientation? Can it also state in each case the means of redress, and whether any case has been successful prosecuted in each of the four categories over the last year?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

There is considerable diversity in Member States' law in this area. The Commission attributes particular importance to the issue and adopted on 25 November 1999 a draft directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1), as part of its package of proposals under Article 13 (ex-Article 6a) of the EC Treaty.

The Honourable Member can find a general description of the situation in the Commission's communication on certain Community measures to combat discrimination(2).

The Commission is currently finalising a report on Member States' legal provisions to combat discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The report is due to be published early in 2000.

As far as legislation on gender equality is concerned, Council Directive 76/207/CEE of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions(3) has been implemented by all Member States and its Article 6 provides for means of redress to be introduced to national legal systems, by judicial process after possible recourse to other competent authorities. Concerning cases prosecuted, information is not yet available for 1999. For 1998, information can be found in the general report of the legal experts' group on equal treatment of men and women for 1997 and 1998, which is available on the Europa website under the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/publicat/equ-opp/experts.pdf.

(1) COM(1999) 565 final.

(2) COM(1999) 564 final.

(3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2522/99

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Sprat catches

To enable fishermen to keep abreast of important decisions of significance for them, will the Commission say how long it takes in the Commission to deal with a proposal on sprat catches, from the drafting stage through to finalised proposal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2000)

The elapsed time from the initiation of work by the services to the adoption of the proposal by the Commission may be about six weeks. This includes consultation, translation and the very procedure of adoption. However, this time may be extended if, during the process, changes are made to the proposal following comments by associated services.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Return of the Elgin marbles

According to reports in the UK press, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken a firm decision not to return the Elgin marbles to Greece, paying no heed to the legitimate aspirations of the Greek nation, long supported by European public opinion and most members of parliament in the Union.

Will the Commission not make a timely intervention and offer its good offices to resolve the dispute, by persuading the United Kingdom to withdraw its decision?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Article 151 (ex-Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community jurisdiction to encourage cooperation in the cultural field. The question raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Community's jurisdiction but is rather the sole concern of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

However, as the Commission is anxious to quickly resolve this issue, which divides the United Kingdom and Greece, it is willing to play the part of political mediator in this case if the two Member States so request.