ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1391/99

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Use of ERDF/EAGGF funds

ERDF/EAGGF funds have been provided by the European Commission for the purpose of extending and improving irrigated areas in the Guaro region. However, in sectors 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the right section the water pipes have not been laid.

1. Could the Commission state why the funds for this section have not been used appropriately and where the money has gone?

2. Is the Commission aware of complaints concerning the failure to lay water pipes in this section and, if so, what measures have been taken by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 1999)

According to the information received from Spain, apart from the part-financing of the construction of the body of the Viñuela dam, the projects part-financed under measure 6.1.1 of the operational programme for the region of Andalusia for 1994-1999 are all located on the left bank of the river Vélez. The work in question has now been practically completed.

The national authorities have officially notified the Commission that the projects to which the Honourable Member refers will probably be implemented during a later phase. At present, no request for part-financing in respect of these projects has been made. Moreover, the Commission would point out that any subsequent application for assistance could be taken into consideration only if it followed the procedure laid down and was submitted officially by the Member State.

No official complaint has been made. The information received from the Spanish Government does not allow the Commission to conclude that Community funds have been fraudulently diverted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Supplements to daily newspapers and consumers' rights

A growing number of daily newspapers in certain countries of the European Union sell weekly supplements. These supplements are sold on a given day of the week together with the normal edition of the newspaper, the price of which is far higher on that day. Regular and occasional readers of the newspaper concerned have no possibility of agreeing or declining to buy the supplement.

Does the Commission not take the view that these practices violate consumers' rights in that they oblige them to buy two clearly distinct products?

Does the Commission not take the view that the concept of a supplement should imply that consumers are free to decide whether or not they wish to purchase it by paying extra, but that the consumer should in any case retain the right to purchase only the basic product (the daily newspaper) at the same price as on the remaining days of the week?

What measures has the Commission taken or will it take to guarantee the right of consumers in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Unilateral decisions concerning the price of newspapers, including the sale of weekly supplements together with the normal edition at a higher price, depend essentially on the free commercial choice of each publisher and do not normally come under the competition rules of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictive agreements (Article 81 EC, former Article 85) and the abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC, former Article 86).

In the event, it would appear that the higher price of newspapers sold with a supplement does not correspond to a concerted practice among publishers of daily newspapers in all Member States. In some cases the inclusion of the weekly supplement entails only a modest price increase or may even be free of charge. Coordinated behaviour by all newspaper publishers with a view to adopting the same possibly restrictive practice regarding the weekly supplement cannot therefore be demonstrated.

Further, since daily newspapers are at issue here rather than specialised publications, which, being particularly authoritative in the area they cover, might more easily enjoy a very powerful position on the market, no abuse of a dominant position can apparently be inferred. In general, a daily newspaper sold with a supplement at a higher price is in competition in each Member State with other daily newspapers which may or may not charge for the weekly supplement and is not therefore in what could be considered to be a dominant market position, and this condition has to be met before Article 82 can be applied.

Accordingly, the practice described by the Honourable Member regarding the sale of daily newspapers does not fall within the scope of Community competition law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/99

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Telecommunications, audiovisual service and data-processing projects in Galicia

From a regional policy angle, it is vital that Galicia be fully integrated in the trans-European transport, telecommunications and energy networks. As a beneficiary of Structural Fund Objective 1 funding, Galicia has managed to secure substantive aid for this purpose.

Will the Commission say which projects and programmes have been funded in Galicia under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund during 1994-1999 in the fields of telecommunications, audiovisual services and data-processing (including development and integration in band networks and service industries and social applications such as health and education)?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 1999)

The list of telecommunications, audio-visual and information technology projects part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund in Galicia up to the end of March 1999 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

It should be noted that some service industries are included in the main priority support for productive activity. In addition, some projects now included under vocational training were transferred from the education sector in order to produce a better general overview.

Under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund(1), the Fund exclusively assists investment in transport infrastructure and environmental protection. The Cohesion Fund does not therefore assist the sectors mentioned by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1772/99

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Proceedings pending before ECJ concerning Austrian drinks tax (C-437/97)

A drinks tax is levied throughout Austria on all drinks, in the form of a local tax. EU Commission representatives had always confirmed that the Austrian drinks tax complied with the requirements of EU

law. It was for that reason that no substantive provisions relating to it were written into the Accession Treaty. But a complaint has now been brought before the European Court of Justice alleging that the drinks tax does not conform to EU law. That is confirmed in the Advocate General's opinion of 1 July 1999.

The Commission is asked the following questions:

1. Is the Commission in possession of documentation relating to scrutiny of the Austrian tax system, in particular the drinks tax, for compatibility with Community law?

2. What position did the Commission adopt in the years 1991 and 1992 in relation to the German drinks tax?

3. For what reasons did the Commission change its position between the early nineties and the proceedings now pending before the ECJ?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

1. and 3. There has been no change in the Commission's position in this matter. The Commission first addressed the matter in early 1998 when it requested a preliminary ruling in C-437/97. At the same time it initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 169) because it believed the Austrian tax to breach Community law. This procedure has now reached the stage of the reasoned opinion.

2. Neither in 1991, 1992 nor indeed at any other time has the Commission had to adopt an official position on the compatibility of Germany's drinks tax with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1682/99

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Strengthening European policy on civil defence

In view of the tragic outcome of the recent earthquakes in Greece which demonstrated the need for a strong European policy for dealing with disasters (civil protection), and as the Commission Directorate-General concerned, DG XI, has given low priority to this policy.

Will the Commission state:

1. How it reconciles the low priority ascribed to civil protection with the statement by Mr Prodi on 4 May on strengthening security policy in the EU?

2. What action it intends to take to strengthen this European policy on civil protection and establish satisfactory cooperation and exchanges of experience between the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

1. Civil protection is not covered by the policies intended to create a free, safe and just area within the Union.

2. The Commission has put to the Council a second programme of Community action on civil protection spanning 1 January 2000-2031 December 2004(1). In line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that programme is intended to support and supplement the efforts made by the Member States to protect individual persons, the environment and property in the event of natural or technological disasters.

(1) COM(98) 768 final OJ C 28, 3.2.1999 and amended proposal COM(1999) 400 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1833/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Measures to combat unemployment following the earthquake in Athens

Many undertakings in Athens have suffered considered losses owing to the earthquake, and as a result they are working below capacity or have stopped working altogether owing to the destruction of their buildings and equipment. The Attika Operational Programme has little ESF funding left and has taken up all the available funding from the European Regional Development Fund. However, there is still considerable funding in the national part of the second Community Support Framework for Greece.

Does the Commission intend to allow part of the unused ESF funds to be used for social actions in areas affected by earthquakes? Does it intend to take other measures to help those affected by earthquakes such as funding the recruitment of unemployed earthquake victims or subsidising the maintenance of jobs in undertakings affected by the earthquake for a reasonable period of time to permit recovery?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

A number of special interventions for the relief of the victims of the earthquake have been agreed through the European social fund (ESF). These interventions will be co-funded through not yet committed ESF credits, which will be re-allocated within a small number of operational programmes (OP) of the Second Community support framework (CSF).

After technical discussions between the Commission and the national authorities, it was agreed that a total of about 45 million from 5 OPs of the Second CSF will be re-oriented to special actions aimed at supporting the unemployed in the afflicted areas through the provision of employment aids, as well as training and work experience in the form of integrated schemes; providing extra tutorial courses for students of the afflicted municipalities; and providing social and health services in the form of employment aid schemes for the relief of the victims of the earthquake. 12 350 unemployed from the afflicted zone are expected to benefit from these measures.

In addition to the above, particular care has been taken and more credits allocated for the immediate improvement of the situation created by the earthquake in the psychiatric hospital of Attica (repairs carried out on the building damaged by the earthquake and relocation of patients).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/99

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Threat of US sanctions against Sol-Melià

The US Department of State is considering the possiblity of imposing sanctions on the Spanish hotel group Sol-Melià on account of its investments in Cuba. The USA is planning to apply Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, which the EU considers to be illegal because its scope extends beyond US territory. Such sanctions, if imposed, would affect international free trade and would damage the business interests of one of Spain's most representative tourism companies.

1. How real is the threat that sanctions may be imposed on Sol-Melià?

2. If sanctions were to be imposed, what action could the Commission take in order to protect Sol-Melià interests?

3. Would the Commission be willing to take up the issue of the Helms-Burton Act with the World Trade Organisation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1999)

The Commission recalls that the decisions and statements made at the Community and the United States summit of 18 May 1998 regarding the Helms Burton and Iran/Libya Sanctions Acts were intended to pave the way for a definitive solution to this major bilateral disagreement. The Commission remains very concerned that no tangible progress has so far been made on the American side on their commitment to seeking Congressional amendment to Title IV of Helms Burton, not least since the American administration has regularly recalled the President's continuing obligation, in the absence of such an amendment, to enforce that Title.

The Commission has for its part always made it clear that if action is taken against Community companies or individuals under the Helms-Burton Act, the question of a new World trade organisation (WTO) panel will inevitably arise.

The Commission has urged the American administration to accelerate the implementation, on their side, of the May 1998 summit deal.

The Commission is following the situation very closely and will continue to keep the Parliament informed of any new developments regarding the implementation of the 18 May 1998 understandings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Audits of Community RTD projects

For years the Court of Auditors has been asking for a substantial increase in the number of audits in the RTD field.

Why has the Commission not complied with the Court's repeated exhortations?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

In the past three years, the Commission has continuously increased the number of checks on the spot as well as the number of audited research and technological development (RTD) contracts, as shown in the table below.

>TABLE>

Audit plans have been based on a selection procedure making use of a new risk analysis method, taking into account audits on request. Furthermore, this increase in the number of audits will be enhanced by the implementation of a new framework agreement signed with an external audit firm. These measures will increase the audit capacity so as to cover 10 % of contractors in the framework of the 5th framework programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Shortcomings of public works in Greece

In its answer (P-2120/98)(1) to my question concerning compliance with quality standards in public works in Greece(2), the Commission pointed out that the first ESPEL (special quality control council) quarterly report found that problems of the kind mentioned do exist and stressed that it expects this matter to make rapid progress and hopes that any financial, disciplinary, penal or other consequences for those responsible will have a dissuasive effect in the future and will result in lasting improvements to the situation as regards quality. It also noted that, depending on their seriousness, the shortcomings suffered by the projects would either have to be corrected by the contractors, or the costs involved would be deducted from their payments, or else the projects would have to be rebuilt at the contractors' own expense.

Given that ESPEL recently forwarded to the services of the Ministry for Economic Affairs reports on 44 public works, of which it transpires that only four projects meet all the necessary standards:

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Will it say what progress has been made in each case in dealing with the shortcomings mentioned in its answer, on which it expected rapid progress to be made?

2. What information does it have on further shortcomings and what measures does it intend to take?

(1) OJ L 135, 14.5.1999, p.16.

(2) Written Question E-2592/98, OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 151.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Imperial measurement

Will the Commission confirm that its statement of 8 February 1999 will allow loose goods to be sold in the UK in imperial measures until the year 2010?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

The use for trade, public health, public safety and public administration, in the Union and the European Economic Area, of units of measurement is harmonised by Directive 80/181/EEC(1), as last amended by Directive 89/617/EEC(2). This harmonised legislation lays down as the legal units for these uses the units of the International System (SI), except for a small number of specific uses for which internationally used non-SI units are allowed. The SI is the extended version of the metric system.

To allow a smooth transition to the use of the SI in the United Kingdom and Ireland, transition periods were created for the phasing out in stages of the units from the imperial system. According to the last of these transition periods that is still in force, the use of the units ounce (avoirdupois) and pound is permitted for the sales by weight of goods, loose from bulk. This transition period comes to an end on 31 December 1999, after which date the kilogram (symbol: kg) becomes the legal unit for these trading transactions.

The statement of 8 February 1999, to which the Honourable Member refers, relates to a proposed amendment(3) of Directive 80/181/EEC, that is currently being discussed by the Parliament and the Council. This proposed amendment would allow the use of non-metric units (such as imperial units) in supplementary indications for an additional ten year period (to 1 January 2010). However, while imperial units may be used during this transitional period in supplementary indications, it should nevertheless be emphasised that from 1 January 2000 the legal unit of measurement for the sale by by weight of goods, loose from bulk, will be the SI unit kilogram or decimal multiples or submultiples thereof.

(1) OJ L 39, 15.2.1980.

(2) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989.

(3) COM(1999) 40 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/99

by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Route of the high-speed rail link between Madrid and Valladolid

The Spanish authorities will shortly finalise the route of the high-speed rail link between Madrid and Valladolid which is part of the Alta Velocidad del Sur project, one of the 14 priority projects supported by the European Union in the context of trans-European transport networks. More specifically, for the section of the route exiting Madrid, the Ministry of Public Works must choose between the corridor which cuts through the towns of Tres Cantos and Soto del Real, which would involve building a large tunnel through the Guadarrama hills, and the Villalba corridor, which, according to the recently published environmental impact assessment, would involve less cost in both economic and environmental terms since it follows the path of the existing Madrid-Segovia line.

In addition, the Spanish government could use the savings resulting from the latter option of improvements to an existing line to increase the accessibility of the north and north-west of the Iberian peninsula through investing in the modernisation of other rail links, such as that between Valladolid and Portugal and the Palencia-La Coruña and León-Gijón lines. This would be the best way to fulfil the criteria and objectives set out in the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund regulations and derive the maximum economic, social and environmental benefit from the project.

What is the Commission's assessment of the possible routes mentioned for the stretch of track in question?

Could the Commission enter into talks with the Spanish government in the hope of encouraging it to opt for the route along the Villalba corridor?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

Decisions on final route choices concerning the two possible rail corridors Tres Cantos -Soto del Real and Villalba are a matter for national authorities.

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996 on the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)(1) includes the indicative layout of the planned high-speed link from Madrid to Valladolid through the corridor Tres Cantos Soto del Real.

However, alternative routes could be examined in the framework of the revision of the TEN-T guidelines planned in 2000.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/99

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Funding of programmes in the field of energy under the Fifth framework programme for research

According to information received by some Finnish firms, the Commission has adopted a different position from Parliament and the Council on the funding of programmes in the field of energy in the context of the Fifth framework programme for research.

Under the common position agreed upon last December by Parliament and the Council, demonstration projects are accorded a central role in research policy. Initially 75 % of the funding was reserved for them. However, what is now happening in practice is that the Commission is outlining a paltry level of funding for demonstration projects in relation to other research projects.

Is the Commission adopting a different position from the European Parliament and the Council on the funding of demonstration projects in the energy field within the Fifth research framework programme, and if so, why?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Commission would first clarify the interpretation of the remarks made by the Council and Parliament on the 1999 budget for the Fifth research and technological development (RDT) framework

programme(1). In its commentary, the budgetary authority, at the initiative of the Parliament, requested that 60 % of credits for non-nuclear energy should be allocated to renewable energies, of which 75 % should be allocated to renewable demonstration projects.

The Commission agrees that there is an urgent need to encourage the demonstration of solutions which favour the use of innovative renewable energy resources and would like to satisfy the commentary as far as practicable. The first call for proposals for the Energy programme (energy component of the energy, environment and sustainable development specific RDT programme) duly gave considerable prominence to demonstration projects and renewable energies.

In selecting the final list of projects for which an immediate start to negotiations is recommended, the Commission has taken the budget commentary into account. The Commission has done its utmost to satisfy the commentary and a large number of demonstration projects in the renewables sector has been selected. The final decision on 1999 projects has not yet been made but the Commission proposal is very close to the budget commentary.

(1) OJ C 173, 7.6.1997.