ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1351/98 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (7 May 1998)

Subject: Facilities on French motorways

Is the Commission able and willing to take up with the French authorities the issue of facilities on French motorway rest areas, in view of the fact that millions of EU citizens from other Member States use these facilities every year?

Is it in particular willing to press the French authorities to introduce proper toilets in such rest areas? Is it aware of the contrast between the generally high quality of such rest areas, many of which have been beautifully designed and landscaped, with the appalling conditions of the toilets provided where users are obliged to squat over a hole rather than use a toilet with a seat?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (26 May 1998)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Cheque book eugenics

Will the Commission investigate the policy pursued by the 'Front National' in Vitrolles, whereby white French families are paid FRF 5000 to have a child, in order to ensure that there is no discrimination against citizens of the European Union, in particular black European citizens who have the misfortune to live in Vitrolles?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The Commission has not received specific complaints concerning racial policies by the authorities of Vitrolles against black European nationals.

Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to highlight that Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community ((OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. )) provide for the principle of equal treatment as regards social advantages between nationals and other European workers and the members of their families. Thus, if the authorities of Vitrolles were to refuse child allowances to non-French European workers or to the members of their families while granting them to French nationals, such discrimination would be contrary to Community law. However, the implementation of national legislation, if any, prohibiting racial discrimination is a matter of national competence.

Furthermore, as announced in its recent Action plan against racism, subject to ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission intends to make a legislative proposal in this area before the end of 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/98 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Aid to combat the citrus wilt virus

According to a study drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture the prospects for the citrus sector in the Valencia Region are not very encouraging. It indicates that 48.5% of the citrus farms in the region are affected by the citrus wilt virus. The situation is worst in Valencia itself, with a 65% infection rate, followed by Castellón with 30% and Alicante with 20%.

This serious disease is causing a substantial decline in agriculture in the area, since trees are being grubbed up and farmers are suffering heavy financial losses. The removal of leaves and stems, as suggested by the Commission, and the moving of trees affected by the virus to and within the region and within it is not the appropriate solution to the problem.

Can the Commission say whether it envisages a programme for the conversion of the areas affected by the virus to include the relevant aid and accompanying measures?

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

The Commission has no specific programme for the conversion of areas affected by the 'tristeza' virus. However, there are three cross-sector regional measures which may apply to such conversion, though recipients cannot qualify for more than one.

Operational programmes of fruit-and-vegetable producer organisations are financed by the operational funds established by the latter with a (50%) contribution from the Community (Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. ))).

Operational programmes are presented by the Member States under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) on the objectives of the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF and EAGGF Guidance Section). The Commission has approved an operational programme for the region of Valencia for the period 1994-99, providing for Community and Member State part-financing of conversion, restructuring and varietal improvement operations in the citrus-growing sector. Such operations comprise the financing of citrus seedlings not sensitive to the 'tristeza' virus. The Community contribution to operations under this programme amounts to 70% of total public expenditure, the remaining 30% being the responsibility of the Member State. The aid equals ESP 600 per seedling planted.

Under Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. )), farmers who fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5 of that Regulation can qualify for aid for investments carried out in accordance with their holding improvement plans. Investments in perennials like citrus are eligible for Community part-financing provided that the purchase of the plants does not form part of the holding's running costs. The total aid is expressed as a percentage of the eligible investment and varies with the type of investment (immovable property, etc.) and the area where the investment is made (less-favoured or other areas).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0356/98 by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission (6 February 1998)

Subject: Legal protection of EU citizens in Russia

Road traffic from the EU Member States to Russia has grown rapidly with the opening up of Russia and its increased trade with the West. There is a particularly high level of traffic from Finland, the only EU country to have a border with Russia.

There have recently been numerous road accidents in Russia, as a result of which Finnish nationals involved have been imprisoned for long periods of time awaiting court decisions, even though the accident was not the result of the driver's actions. Among other things, the prisoners have not been allowed to contact their families.

How does the Commission propose to take to ensure that Russia does not discriminate in its own legislation against the EU Member States and their nationals?

What pressure will the Commission bring to bear on the Russian authorities to guarantee the legal protection of EU nationals working in Russia?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member concerning the legal protection of Community citizens in Russia.

The legal protection of Community citizens in Russia falls under the competence of the Member States with the assistance of their diplomatic representations in Russia.

On the other hand, the Commission is also concerned with this issue, especially in regard to the legal protection of Community citizens working in Russia on technical assistance or humanitarian projects, and increasingly in regard to economic operators.

Thus the Commission has raised the issue of the legal protection of Community nationals working in Russia at Community - Russia joint committee meetings. In addition, specific questions of security of Community transporters on Russian roads were raised during the Community - Russia trade facts working group in October 1997.

The Commission will continue to raise these issues in the appropriate fora.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0976/98 by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Legality, under European competition law, of the reservation of a quarter of French government and local authority contracts for workers' production cooperatives (WPCs)

French law on public procurement recognizes the existence of reserved rights for workers' production cooperatives (WPCs).

For instance, where government and local authority contracts are concerned (Article 62 et seq. and Article 260 et seq. of the Public Procurement Regulations), WPCs are granted preferential treatment through the automatic reservation of a quarter of any given contract.

Although French law makes procurement open to suppliers throughout Europe, and WPCs in other EU Member States may therefore bid for contracts, is it permissible for a State to reserve 25% of any contract, on principle, for suppliers with a particular status? In other words, does this not undermine competition among firms within the EU, since not all the market in France is open on the same terms?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0282/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the Port State Control Directive (95/21/EC)

How many qualified inspectors are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Port State Control Directive (95/21/EC) ((OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1. )) in each Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0281/98 and E-0282/98 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The number of detentions per Member State since the implementation date of Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (1 July 1996 to 31 December 1997) is as follows:

>TABLE>

The available statistics from the secretariat of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control cover all of 1996 and 1997 and include some non-Community members, however from the information available, the summary of detentions per ship type is indicated as a percentage, as follows:

>TABLE>

In accordance with Article 17 of Directive 95/21/EC, Member States have supplied the following information on the number of Port State Control inspectors (full-time equivalent) working on their behalf immediately after the entry into force of the Directive:

>TABLE>

Updated information is due by 1 October 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/98 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) and Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Renovation of the railway line between Enschede (NL) and Gronau (D)

1. The Dutch province of Overijssel and the municipality of Enschede, as well as the German municipality of Gronau and the German federal state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, wish to restore the old railway line between Enschede and Gronau in order to intensify cross-border cooperation.

2. Around NLG 25 million would be needed to restore the 8 km line.

3. Has the Commission already received an application from the Euregio and the Netherlands Government for financial assistance with this project?

4. What facilities does the Commission have for financing this project, and how can the Euregio draw on EU funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1998)

The Commission is aware that the province of Overijssel and the municipality of Enschede in the Netherlands, on one side, and the Land North Rhine-Westphalia and the municipality ofGronau in Germany on the other wish to rebuild the railway line linking these two municipalities within the Euregio. In the operational programme submitted by the Netherlands and Germany under the Community's Interreg IIA Initiative, the national authorities drew the Commission's attention to this gap in the rail network between the two Member States. Nevertheless, measure 1 proposed by that operational programme provides only for establishing framework conditions and filling in missing links so as to improve infrastructural aspects and attract private investors. The Commission has also received no formal application for part-funding of the railway line.

The notice to the Member States laying down guidelines for operational programmes under Interreg IIA ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994, (point 14(j)). )) provides for shared funding of improvements to transport and other communication systems within and between border areas, subject to certain conditions and in areas seriously deficient in infrastructures, by the creation or modernisation of infrastructures. An application for part-financing of the railway line in question under Interreg IIA in the Euregio would have to be submitted by the project sponsor to the Euregio secretariat and approved by the programme's steering committee.

It should be pointed out that part-funding of the railway line only on the Dutch side under the single programming document for the regions covered by Objective 2 in the province of Overijssel is not possible, since that document provides only for such railway infrastructures as are directly connected with economic activities (links to industrial sites, freight terminals).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (6 May 1998)

Subject: Legal aid for EU prisoners in Morocco

1. Is the Council aware of the helpless situation in which suspects from countries of the European Union are placed when they are deprived of adequate legal aid, the assistance of professional interpreters, or adequate humanitarian aid in Morocco, a country where they have no notion of the language?

2. Does the Council realize the serious consequences which such a lack of professional support may have for EU nationals in court proceedings?

3. Is the Council aware that the prisoners in Morocco from EU Member States include a number of people aged over 70 who are in a state of cultural isolation and are suffering disproportionately as a result?

4. Is the Council aware that, following the visit in October 1997 of the Netherlands official delegation headed by Mr Damoiseaux, Head of the African Department of The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Foreign Ministry has made no further contacts with the Moroccan Government to negotiate a treaty for the transfer of prisoners to The Netherlands to enable them complete their sentences in Netherlands prisons?

5. Why has there been no response to the Moroccan Government's offer, made in October 1997, to negotiate with the Netherlands Government on a treaty to enable Netherlands citizens to serve their sentences in the Netherlands, in their own cultural surroundings? This question is particularly pertinent since the Moroccan Government has already signed similar treaties with France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Malta and Belgium among others. In 1997, within half a year, the Moroccan Government negotiated its treaty with the Belgian Government, and signed the final agreement with Belgium. Why should the completion of a similar treaty between The Netherlands and Morocco take longer than this?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1396/98 and E-1397/98 (6 July 1998)

The issues the Honourable Member raises in Written Question No 1396/98 and in points 4 and 5 of her Written Question No 1397/98 do not fall within the Council's sphere of competence.

The matters referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 of Written Question No 1397/98 have never been discussed by the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/98 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Appeal to the Court of Justice by the Commission

According to press reports in December last year the Commission has decided to appeal to the Court of Justice with a view to bringing infringement proceedings against the Italian Government for the alleged absence in Law 236/95 of transitional arrangements to safeguard the acquired rights of language assistants ('collaboratori linguistici', formerly known as 'lettori') already working in Italian universities in accordance with Presidential Decree 382/80. This move essentially ignored the meaning of the judgment passed by that Court (Section V) of 20 November 1997. The present request to bring proceedings is clearly based on confusion between the terms 'lecturer' and 'lettore'. The Commission in no way indicated how the Italian Government has failed to respect the 'acquired rights', since the rules introduced in Law 236/95 guarantee the safeguarding of the rights acquired by the parties concerned under the previous legal framework and improve their treatment overall.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether and to what extent the Commission's decision was influenced by articles in the press or views expressed by European members of parliament;

2. what the legal bases for the appeal are?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0308/98 by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Principality of Monaco and the euro

The advantages accorded to the Principality of Monaco since the beginning of this century have been a constant source of surprise.

The latest reported financial privilege relates to the future single currency. Although it lies within European Community customs territory, Monaco does not belong to the European Union.

Once the euro has been established as the single currency, however, Monaco will be entitled to use it on account of a skilful legal subterfuge providing for special terms in monetary relations between Monaco and France under the Maastricht Treaty.

Whereas all the Member States that will be adopting the single currency now have to undertake gigantic exertions in order to satisfy the criteria laid down in the Treaty on European Union and gain their ticket to the euro, Monaco needs only to wait calmly for the change-over date to make a smooth, painless switch.

Does the Commission think it legally and morally right to grant such an immense favour to the Prince?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

According to Declaration No 6 appended to the EC Treaty, the Community has undertaken to facilitate such renegotiations of existing arrangements as might become necessary as a result of the introduction of the single currency.

The purpose of the Declaration is to allow the existing situation to continue as regards monetary relations between Monaco and France. It is quite usual for states or territories with small populations to adopt the currency of a neighbouring country as their national currency. As its title indicates, the Declaration also covers monetary relations between the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City on the one hand, and Italy on the other.

The convergence criteria are not directly applicable to the Principality of Monaco, since it is not part of the Community and is therefore not a co-signatory to the EC Treaty. Accordingly, the Principality has not been involved in the decision-making process leading up to the introduction of the single currency, and will be unable to play an active role in future in the development of monetary policy by the Central European Bank (CEB) and the coordination of economic policy by the Member States within the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/98 by Hedy d'Ancona (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Report entitled 'An appraisal of technologies of political control - interim study', drawn up by STOA (the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options SInt.St.)

What action will the Commission take on the recommendations set out in the report entitled 'An appraisal of technologies of political control - interim study', drawn up by STOA (the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) (PE 166.499./Int.St.), especially those concerning (new) interrogation and torture techniques?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0807/98, E-0808/98 and E-0809/98 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0394/98 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Use of Structural Funds resources to achieve compliance with the Maastricht Criteria

Mr Friedmann, President of the Court of Auditors, recently remarked that Spain and Portugal were using Structural Funds resources to achieve compliance with the Maastrich Criteria.

Is there any concrete evidence to suggest that Member States are using money from the Structural Funds to achieve compliance with the Maastricht Criteria?

If so, what is it?

If not, how can Mr Friedmann's statement be explained?

Have inquiries been made into this matter?

What were the findings of any such investigations by the Court of Auditors?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0219/98 and E-0394/98 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission has no information on investigations carried out by the Court of auditors on this subject, nor any other evidence which would support the statement attributed to the President of the Court of auditors.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0871/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Progress in the fight against child abuse

In 1997 the Commission submitted a communication on combating child sex tourism (COM(96)0547) and a memorandum on the European Union's contribution to stepping up the fight against child abuse and the sexual exploitation of children (C4-0556/96). A report drawn up for Parliament on the subject urged that the available instruments be used.

l. What action has the Commission taken in the meantime to achieve the objectives set out in the communication and memorandum?

2. Does the Commission have any information on action that the Member States may have recently taken in this area?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1998)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/98 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Kurdish prisoners of conscience in Turkey

Is the Commission aware of the desperate plight of Kurdish prisoners of conscience in Turkey? Not only are they subject to inhumane treatment - such as torture using electric batons - but they are also being denied proper medical treatment. Is this acceptable behaviour from a country seeking to join the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

The Commission is well aware of the situation as regards human rights and democratisation in Turkey. In its annual report to Parliament on the development of relations with Turkey since the entry into force of the customs union, ((Doc. COM(1998) 147 final. )) adopted on 4 March, the Commission noted that the country had not made substantial progress in this area since the previous report. The same view is set out in that part of Agenda 2000 ((Doc. COM(97) 2000 final. )) devoted to Turkey.

Last December's Luxembourg European Council noted that Turkey had not yet fulfilled the economic and political conditions allowing it to begin accession negotiations. The Council did however think it important to draw up a European strategy to bring Turkey closer to the Community in all areas. The communication 'A European Strategy for Turkey - The Commission's initial operational proposals' adopted by the Commission on 4 March ((Doc. COM(1998) 124 final. )) sets out to help Turkey undertake the political and economic reforms needed to draw it closer to the Community.