ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0653/98 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Revision of the Galician milk quota

The recent public disturbances in Galicia (Spain) have demonstrated yet again how chronically out of step the production quota of 1 670 000 tonnes of milk assigned to the Galician livestock sector is with the real production figures, which are in access of 2 million tonnes.

For that reason, in order to 'normalize' this quota overshoot, farmers must buy it outside Galicia or pay an annual fine of some 1 800 million pesetas. Of the 29 000 Spanish livestock farmers who have to pay the Community fine for overproduction, 22 000 live in Galicia, the autonomous community with the lowest average production, namely less than 34 000 kilos per farm.

What action might the Commission take in order to solve this chronic problem, which threatens to permanently disrupt the Galician milk industry and is currently the cause of intense agitation and discontent owing to the fact that no solution is in sight?

Answer given by Mr Fischler, on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The Honourable Member is reminded that the total guaranteed quantity, or milk quota, allocated to Spain was determined, as for the other Member States, on the basis of historical reference production levels. Thus producers in Galicia were also allocated their individual reference quantity on this historical basis. Moreover, unlike most other Member States, from 1994/1995 onwards Spain's quota was increased by an extra 592 000 tonnes. Much of this additional quota was used to increase the individual reference quantities allocated to producers in Galicia.

It should also be recalled that Member States have a lot of room for manoeuvre with respect to their total guaranteed quantity, in that they may reallocate reference quantities and improve the distribution of available quantities between various regions, according to needs identified using objective criteria.

Nevertheless, under the proposals of the Agenda 2000 reform package, adopted on 18 March 1998 ((COM (98) 158 A. )), the Commission proposes a 2% increase in the Community's total guaranteed quantity, including 1% for new entrants and 1% for producers in mountain areas. Producers in Galicia will clearly benefit quite particularly from these new allocations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0597/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Civil aviation in the European Union

On 27 January 1998 the Forum Europe organized a conference in Brussels entitled 'Meeting the Global Challenge - the Outlook for Civil Aviation in the EU'. Will the Commission give its views on the tendencies and views expressed at this conference, and say whether it considers that there is any scope for taking measures aimed at strengthening Community policy in this area?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The conference mentioned by the Honourable Member focused on the issue of globalisation in air transport and its consequences for civil aviation in the Community.

The Commission recognises the need to have a regulatory structure adapted to the needs of globalised civil aviation.

Since 1987, three packages of liberalisation measures have gradually created a single aviation market within the Community which offers Community airlines a strong basis for the development of a world-wide strategy. However, globalisation requires that the Community adopts an effective external policy in order to ensure that Community carriers, as well as consumers, can take the fullest possible advantage of the new competitive environment while ensuring safety and fair competition.

The Commission is developing such a policy in negotiating the establishment of a European common aviation area with ten central European countries. It has also submitted to the Council a proposal for a decision ((SEC(97) 2053 final. )) authorising the Commission to open negotiations for an agreement with the United States on the creation of a transatlantic common aviation area. The granting of such a mandate, which is still under discussion in the Council, would constitute an important step in the development and implementation of an effective common external aviation policy in line with the globalisation of the industry and it would serve the interests of the Community and its Member States, airlines and people.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/98 by Alan Donnelly (PSE) to the Commission (18 June 1998)

Subject: Health and safety laws on tourist sites

Will the Commission disclose what plans it has to draw up proposals to introduce EU-wide standards for health and safety on tourist sites such as campsites, caravan sites and other similar tourist facilities?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1998)

There exists already at Community level a number of legislative measures in the area of consumer protection, and in particular concerning the health and safety of consumers, which serve to protect the tourist. The Commission will keep under continual review the operation of such measures.

These measures to protect consumers are in addition to the considerable body of Community legislation protecting the health and safety of workers.

The Commission considers, however, that the establishment of specific standards for health and safety of the public on tourist sites is primarily a matter for Member States, and that the tourist industry too must play its role in raising the quality and safety of tourist sites to the highest possible standards. Effective dissemination of information to the tourist on minimum health and safety requirements on tourist sites is an essential element in raising standards.

In that context, the Commission will ensure that existing measures are properly implemented and will seek to encourage the dissemination of information and best practice in the case of innovative measures taken in Member States in this area. This will be a priority issue in the case of future work programmes dealing with the promotion of tourists'interests.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Checks on persons at internal borders

1. Is the Commission aware that since Italy joined the Schengen Agreement border controls are no longer carried out between Italy, its neighbouring countries and Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, whereas checks are still carried out between the Netherlands and Italy (Schiphol)?

2. Does the Commission take the view that since the internal borders between the Netherlands and its neighbouring countries have been abolished the checks in Schiphol serve little purpose?

3. Does the Commission not think that, since the Schengen Agreement is to be incorporated in the third pillar, it should make another attempt to have pointless and unnecessary internal border controls done away with?

4. If so, how does the Commission intend to do this and what steps will it take to bring it about?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

1 and 2. Border controls between Italy and the other Schengen member countries have not yet been completely abolished. The decision by the Executive Committee on 7 October 1997 regarding the implementation of the Schengen Agreement by Italy stipulates among other things that passport controls at airports will be abolished for flights to and from Italy, subject to bilateral agreement. Italy and the Netherlands will sign an additional protocol which will provide for the gradual phasing-out of passport checks at airports by 29 March 1998. Controls at terrestrial borders will be abolished in agreement with the relevant neighbouring countries during an initial transitional phase beginning on 26 October 1997 and ending in March 1998.

3 and 4. According to Article 2(1) of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, it is the duty of the Council, acting in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Treaties, to determine the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis. What is more, the Schengen acquis will not be incorporated in its entirety into Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; instead it will be 'broken down' between the EC Treaty and Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission considers that the legal basis for the provisions of the Schengen acquis on the abolition of passport controls at internal borders, and in particular Article 2(1) to (3) of the Schengen Agreement, is the EC Treaty, and more particularly new Article 62(1). If the Council shares this view in its decision to break down the Schengen acquis between the EC Treaty and Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, these elements of the Schengen acquis will be administered and, where necessary, amended in accordance with the relevant institutional provisions of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/98 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (11 May 1998)

Subject: Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund

The agreement between the authorities of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar to wind up the so-called Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund as of 31 December 1993, a clear violation of Community law, led the Commission to deliver a reasoned opinion against the United Kingdom, as provided for under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty.

The result of the Commission's action has been the resumption of pension payments since 30 June 1996. Nonetheless, hundreds of Spanish workers and pensioners have yet to receive the payment of arrears corresponding to the period 1 January 1994 to 30 June 1996.

Given these circumstances, what measures will the Commission be taking to ensure compliance with the provisions of Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. )) and 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, p. 1. )), as well as those of Articles 48 to 51 and Article 227 of the Treaty of Rome?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerning the failure to pay arrears for the period 1 January 1994 to 30 June 1996 to some former workers affiliated to the Gibraltar pension fund.

In effect, when the Commission decided on 26 June 1997 to close the proceedings instituted against the United Kingdom following the dissolution of this fund, an individual letter was sent to the 6 500 persons who had complained to inform them of the steps taken by the Commission since 1994 to resolve the problem. However, they were also requested to provide information on any difficulties encountered in recovering the pensions in order to ensure that the rights of the beneficiaries were respected.

Following this letter the Commission contacted the UK authorities with an eye to resolving the problem cases. If the situation persists the Commission may possibly institute new infringement proceedings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1454/98 by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission (11 May 1998)

Subject: Large system-built estates in applicant countries

In the former eastern bloc countries, including the GDR, over 170 million people live in large system-built estates. These estates will be needed for decades to meet the demand for housing, but they present serious risks both as buildings and in social terms. What is the Commission doing to cope with these problems which the EU will face in acute form with future enlargements?

The German National Habitat Commitee designated the Berlin-Hellersdorf estate project as a 'best practice' model and for dealing with the problem presented it in Istanbul in 1996. In October 1997 120 experts from 25 central and eastern European cities met in Sofia and called on the EU to address the problem of large system-built estates (Sofia declaration on the future of large system-built estates in central and eastern Europe). Has the Commission reacted, and if so, how?

Does the Commission have relevant data on the subject from these countries and especially those seeking accession to the EU? Is it prepared to present, initiate or participate in a programme for on-going development in estates of this type, and if so in what form?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1998)

The pre-accession strategy for the candidate countries, as set out in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) and in the conclusions of the European Council held in Luxembourg in December 1997, is intended to enable all the applicant states of Central and Eastern Europe eventually to become members of the Community and, to that end, to align themselves as far as possible on the Community acquis prior to accession.

Housing policy is not an integral part of the Community acquis and is a matter which can most efficiently be decided at a local, regional or national level. Hence the Commission does not have a direct role in relation to the future of prefabricated housing in Central and Eastern Europe and has no specific comments to offer on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0804/98 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Delays and fraud in the customs clearance of T-forms

Is the European Commission aware that, in the case of transport of goods under customs seal from one EU country to another, the procedure for the customs clearance of T-forms gives rise to enormous delays and goes hand-in-hand with widespread fraud involving copies of these forms? Is the European Commission aware that the delays usually occur at the place of destination, since the customs officials in the recipient country do not return the relevant copy to the country of origin where it should be processed by the administration?

Is the European Commission aware that, according to an article which was published on 10 February 1998 in 'Nieuwsblad Transport' (Transport News), the worst offenders are to be found in the British customs services which consign the forms to the wastepaper basket instead of returning them to the country of origin (with the result that the shipper must himself then prove that his goods duly arrived)?

Does not the European Commission feel that it would be better if such processing were computerized?

Does the Commission intend to take measures with a view to putting a stop to this situation? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1998)

The Commission is aware that the procedure for the customs clearance of T-forms gives rise to delays.

The return copy of the transit documents is sent back to the office of departure either directly or through centralised offices in the Member State of destination, in the Member State of departure or in both. According to the Commission's information, delays are incurred at all customs offices involved in this chain for the return of the transit documents.

No, the Commission is not aware of the article mentioned.

The Commission agrees that computerised processing would be better.

On 30 April 1997, the Commission adopted an 'Action plan for transit in Europe * A new customs policy' ((COM(97) 188 final. )). In this action plan, the Commission describes the computerisation of the transit procedures as the key to transit reform. Under the New computerised transit system (NCTS), the return copy of the transit documents will be replaced by an electronic message, allowing a faster discharge of the transit operations and increasing the operational security. Pending the introduction of the computerised system, the Commission has launched a series of operational measures to speed up the return of the transit documents to the offices of departure. A network of national transit coordinators and local contact points was established and Member States were required to adopt national transit management plans following a commonly agreed structure. On the legislative side, the Commission proposed to clarify the deadlines for sending back the return copy of the transit documents and to reorganise the centralised offices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (24 April 1998)

Subject: REGIS Community initiative

In view of the specific nature of Portugal's Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), how does the Commission account for its proposal to abolish the REGIS initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1998)

So that future Community Initiatives may be made more effective, innovative and visible in the public eye, Article 19 of the Commission proposal for a general Council Regulation on the Structural Funds ((COM(98) 131 final. )) provides that the Community Initiatives should concentrate on three topics genuinely reflecting the Community's interest in cooperation and innovation. These are crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation, rural development and, lastly, transnational cooperation on new means of combating all forms of discrimination in access to the labour market.

In addition, the 1994 Commission Notice ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )) laying down the guidelines for REGIS II states that 'Under this Initiative, the most remote regions may participate fully in measures under other Initiatives ...'. This means that the series of measures for implementation up to the end of 1999 form a highly consistent and closely knit whole.

Accordingly, measures to be implemented under Regis up to that date can be put forward by the Member State under Objective 1 programmes with a view to even greater concentration on those topics, simpler management and administration, and lastly, more effective use of Community funds.

For measures applying specifically to those regions and derogating from Community policies, the new Article of the Amsterdam Treaty could also allow the Commission to propose adjustments to the Council to take account of the constraints affecting each region individually.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: Chernobyl 4 Reactor Shelter Fund

The aid provided by the G7 and the EU for the building work to protect the Chernobyl 4 reactor is inadequate to ensure that the project is carried through. Only half of the necessary US$ 750 million have been raised. How does the Commission see the remainder of the money being raised, and how does it intend to act on the view expressed by Parliament in the Adam report to the effect that the funding of the project must be sound and efficient and that the EU must only pay when other countries have fulfilled their contributions?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1998)

The Chernobyl shelter implementation plan which is being implemented by the European Bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) through the Chernobyl shelter fund has been estimated at about 700 MECU. At present, contributions pledged from G7 countries, from the Community, from Ukraine and from other non G7 countries amount to 350 MECU.

Against this background, the Commission considers it important that additional efforts be pursued to find additional funds, from public and from private sources, which will allow the project to be completely implemented. The implementation period for the full project is until 2006.

The Chernobyl shelter fund assembly of contributors and its chairman, Dr Hans Blix, have recognised the importance of the problem at the first assembly meeting. The G7 supported this effort at its recent summit meeting. Specific initiatives are being discussed in this context, in particular also with a view to raise donations from the private sector. The Commission is closely associated with these efforts.

It should be noted that the project is structured in a way which allows certain urgent tasks to be executed before the full financing is available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (25 May 1998)

Subject: Slate industry and fourth framework programme for research and development

In her reply to my previous Written Question No. E-4008/97 ((OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 55. )) and with reference to the fourth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, Mrs Cresson cited by way of example three projects funded under the technology stimulation measures (CRAFT) scheme of the IMT programme (projects nos. BES2-5168, BES2-2134 and BES2-5271) involving the slate industry. Some of the 16 SME which took part in these projects are Spanish.

Will the Commission give details of all projects funded under the abovementioned fourth framework programme in which the Spanish slate industry took part, specifying the regions concerned, the total amount involved and the amount of Community funding?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1998)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1998)

Subject: Homeworkers in Europe

As the Working Time Directive clearly indicates that it applies to all types of workers, including homeworkers, what steps will the Commission take to monitor and enforce this provision?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1998)

It is the obligation of the Member States to ensure that their legislation is in conformity with the provisions of Community law in general. Provided that Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, the so-called working time directive ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )) is correctly implemented, it is for the national authorities to monitor and enforce the national measures implementing the Directive.

The Commission is currently undertaking a thorough examination of the national measures with a view to presenting a report on the implementation of this directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission (29 April 1998)

Subject: Anti-prohibitionist demonstrations

In view of the European Parliament's final report by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark on combating drugs, the setting up of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) in The Hague and the creation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which are unequivocal evidence of the Union's commitment to combating drugs, and in the light of what happened in London during a demonstration held by anti-prohibitionists, can the Commission prevail upon the Member States to provide the general public with accurate information? Among other things they should be told that colourful and apparently harmless demonstrations by anti-prohibitionist organisations, for example, which under a playful exterior conceal the threat of propaganda promoting consumption, may be authorised only if they comply with the principles promoted by the Union.

Can the Commission also prevail upon the British authorities to ensure implementation of the existing rules banning the sale and consumption of drugs and the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the demand for drugs in the interests of young people's health, education and rehabilitation?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 June 1998)

The need to provide to the citizen reliable and comparable information on the drugs situation in Europe has been recognized by the creation, in Lisbon, of the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction.

The Commission's role is to take any useful initiative to encourage co-operation between the Member States, to support their action and to promote the co-ordination of Member States' policies and programmes in the prevention field. In this context, a Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence, for the years 1996-2000, is being implemented by the Commission, in close co-operation with the Member States.

The Commission would point out that any permission to demonstrate is the responsibility of the Member States.