ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3585/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the operational programme on natural gas

The Second Community Support Framework for Greece comprises the operational programme on natural gas and has a total public budget of ECU 747 million. This programmes contains the following subprogrammes: 1. High pressure pipeline; 2. Medium pressure networks; 3. Low pressure networks; 4. Expropriations, underground installations and remote control and management system; and 5. Technical aid.

Given that the subprogrammes have been running since 1994, will the Commission state:

1. What progress has been made and what has been the take-up rate of appropriations in the case of each of the subprogrammes?

2. Where delays in take-up have occurred, what are the main reasons for these delays in the case of each subprogramme?

3. In the latest review of the Second CSF for Greece, were changes made to the above programme, and if so what amount of funding was involved and which measures were affected?

4. Given that for a variety of reasons (financial, a decline in international oil prices, a reduction in VAT on electricity, etc.), there has been a significant reduction in the cost of rival sources of energy (oil and electricity) and the assumptions on which the project was based are no longer valid, does the Commission consider that measures are needed to ensure the viability of this project and, if so, what kind of measures?

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

(28 January 1999)

On the basis of the latest financing plan approved by the Commission on 5 December 1997, the current rate of utilisation of appropriations allocated up to 31 December 1998 for each of the five subprogrammes in the operational programme on "natural gas" financed under the Community Support Framework for Greece is 100 % for the first subprogramme, 72 % for the second subprogramme, 56 % for the third subprogramme, 79 % for the fourth subprogramme and 100 % for the fifth subprogramme. Thus there has not been any lengthy delay in the utilisation of appropriations, apart from in the 3rd subprogramme, where extensive preparation was required to set up the legal framework for the adoption of urban network concessions.

The operational programme did not undergo any modification in the last review of the CSF.

The introduction of natural gas in Greece is of great importance, both in terms of diversification of the energy supply and from the environmental point of view. A strict analysis of financial viability is not a suitable way of appraising such a project. The current economic situation as regards the international prices of rival sources of energy does not challenge the appropriateness of this measure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2144/98

by Barry Seal (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Review of eligible areas under RETEX Community initiative

In view of the serious and continuing losses in textiles and clothing jobs in the Yorkshire region, particularly in those parts of the region excluded from the current RETEX programme, is the Commission prepared to review the RETEX regulations to allow greater flexibility in the choice of eligible areas?

As the Commission knows, the European Parliament has previously expressed its wish to see at least the same level of flexibility applied to RETEX as is currently applied to the Konver Community Initiative. This flexibility is especially desirable since so many of the people losing jobs in the textile and clothing industries are women and are from ethnic minority communities which experience the greatest difficulty in finding alternative employment.

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

(15 September 1998)

The RETEX Community Initiative, launched in 1992, was originally planned to run until 1997 but has been extended, with extra funding, to 1999. Under the guidelines for operational programmes under RETEX, eligible areas have to be situated in objective 1, 2 or 5b areas heavily dependent on the textile and clothing sector. Special emphasis must be given to concentrating on the zones within the eligible regions where the present or anticipated difficulties are the greatest. This has been particularly important for beneficiaries situated in the most disadvantaged regions of the Community. In the 1994 guidelines for RETEX the Commission maintained this definition of eligible areas.

The guidelines for Konver, also adopted in 1994, define the eligible areas in a more flexible way due to the different scope and relative importance of the defence industry in areas outside objective 1, 2 and 5b areas. This has allowed the inclusion in Konver programmes of zones that are not part of the latter areas.

With the end of the current programming period approaching, the new regulatory framework for interventions under the structural funds is being prepared. Considerable parts of current RETEX areas will be covered by the new regional objectives. In these circumstances the Commission does not consider it appropriate to review the definition of eligible areas for this initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4105/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Possible infringement of the rules on free competition by the law governing "banking foundations" in Italy

A law on the reform of "banking foundations" was recently passed in Italy.

It allows such foundations to maintain holdings in banking companies, which means in practice that they can exercise control over them. The fact that they combine socially useful functions with economic objectives constitutes an inappropriate overlapping of roles and allows them to extend their sphere of influence to other business activities, whilst maintaining the status of non-commercial entities, with all the tax benefits that that entails. The absence of a clear distinction between the two types of activity could have an adverse effect on competition on markets, because of both the favourable tax provisions applicable to such foundations and the counterproductive effects on the ownership of companies and access to credit for non-banking firms. The tax concessions enjoyed by the foundations might give the companies held by them an unfair competitive advantage, which might lead to the foundations having a greater capacity than private shareholders to give financial support to the companies in which they have a share. This would distort competition by aiding certain firms at the expense of others.

Can the Commission therefore:

- ascertain directly the scope of the reform and any infringements of the rules of the single market and competition which it might entail for the Italian and European economic systems;

- say whether it does not consider, in particular, that the tax concessions enjoyed by the foundations - which give the firms held by them an unfair competitive advantage and distort normal competition - constitute a blatant infringement of the European rules on free competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

The Honourable Member's Written Question raises concerns on the possible adverse effect on competition included in the provisions of the Italian law No 461 of the 23 December 1998. The law aims to restructure the regulations applicable to the "banking foundations" - public non-profit organisations that currently combine socially useful functions with economic goals. With the goal to make these entities fully regulated by the civil laws, the new regulation foresees, among other things, the establishment of an independent supervisory authority, provisions to change the legal nature of the "foundations", and fiscal measures to facilitate the transition of these entities to the private regime.

The Commission will ask the Italian authority the necessary information to investigate the presence of any rule that may jeopardise the competition and the functioning of the single market. The Honourable Member will be held informed of the examination of this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3400/98

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

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Specific gene research

Can the European Commission promote specific gene research under the European Programme for Research and Development?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 1999)

Under the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) the Commission supported genetics research under numerous specific programmes including Life Sciences and Technologies, International Cooperation, Human Capital, Standards, Information Technology and BRITE-Euram (Industrial and material technologies). The research relates to the genetics of many different living organisms including microbes, plants, farm animals and man. The research aims to enhance frontier biological knowledge, to improve health care and medicine, and to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry.

This type of research will be strongly enhanced under several thematic programmes of the fifth framework programme but particularly in the key actions and activities of a generic nature of theme 1 relating to quality of life and management of living resources. The objectives of this research will be to meet key socio-economic needs in the areas of health and food, control of infectious diseases, cell factory and sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry.

Gene research has also been introduced in the specific part of the framework programme that defines the activities of the Joint research centre. The objective is to assist the European legislative framework. The Institute for health and consumer protection (IHCP) in Ispra is mainly developing analytical methods to contribute to the detection of genetically modified organisms. The Institute for prospective technological studies (IPTS) in Seville analyses the socio-economic impacts of life sciences in general and is in particular involved in the assessment of biotechnology and genetic engineering. IPTS studies focus on the relevance and impacts of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms on European policy areas. The main areas of interest are health care technologies and genetically modified crops.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Regulation No 258/97 on novel foods

The Commission's answer to question P-1999/98(1) suggests that Article 8 of Regulation 258/97(2) has not been transposed in full by the Commission. Is the answer to be taken as meaning that the Commission wants labelling to indicate only the procedure, and not the modified characteristics or properties, such as resistance to herbicides or insecticides?

Why is the Commission failing to transpose Article 8 of Regulation 258/97 in full?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

Article 8, and more particularly paragraph 1(a) thereof, of Regulation (EC) 258/97 on new foodstuffs, as referred to by the Honourable Member, stipulates that the labelling for a new food or new food ingredient that is no longer equivalent to an existing food or food ingredient must have entered on it the modified food characteristics or properties (composition, nutrient value or nutritional effects or intended use of the food), accompanied by a description of the method whereby that characteristic or property has been acquired. It emerges from those provisions that the characteristics having been modified at plant level, such as resistance to herbicides or to insects, are agronomic and not food characteristics, and so do not need to be labelled in pursuance of said article. Conversely, a statement that a food or food ingredient has been produced from, for example, "genetically-modified soya or maize" corresponds to the modified food characteristics (for food composition) and to their method of acquisition (genetically) which should appear on the labelling.

The Commission fully implements Article 8 of Regulation 258/97. As stated above the entries hoped for by the Honourable Member are not covered by this regulation and its provisions.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 123.

(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/98

by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Regulation of duty-free shops

The Commission's delaying over the regulation of duty-free shops has created confusion among the organizations affected. At the same time, the Member States are taking their own, conflicting measures. Would the Commission, therefore, say what measures it will take, in collaboration with Parliament, to remove the confusion in the minds of the buying public and lay down clear rules to govern the operation of such shops?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 1999)

Rules for the taxation of goods sold by duty-free shops to passengers travelling within the Community are contained in the general provisions of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(1) and Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(2). Until 30 June 1999, Member States may, as a derogative measure under Article 28k of Directive 77/388/EEC and Article 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC, exempt such supplies from VAT and excise duties, subject to certain conditions in terms of value and quantity.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that, according to the EC Treaty, Member States shall take all appropriate measures for the implementation of existing Community legislation.

To facilitate the application of the existing legislation in the specific case of the ending of intra-Community duty-free sales, the Commission met representatives of Member States in order to discuss how existing VAT and excise provisions should be applied to sales to intra-Community air and ferry travellers. Subsequently, the Commission issued a press release(3) clarifying the situation.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(3) IP98/858.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/98

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Reform of German spelling

The reformed spelling system will shortly enter into force in Germany.

Will the Commission draw up all official documents in German in accordance with the new spelling rules in future?

If not, why?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

Yes, it being understood that it will coordinate its action on this matter with the other Community Institutions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3718/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Sub-standard housing in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain)

Urban redevelopment work is currently under way in the town of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) to make way for the Las Canteras - El Confital Maritime Park, financed from Community funds through the Operative Local Environment Programme (Programa Operativo de Medio Ambiente Local - POMAL).

To enable this work to go ahead, the sites on which many of those living on the margins of society have made their homes are being expropriated. However, no provision has been made for rehousing this group of people, whilst the financial compensation they receive as a result of the expropriation is scarcely adequate to make up for the loss of their current homes.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it believe that urban development programmes affecting groups like this with serious social difficulties should make the latter's needs a priority, so as to avoid generating further social exclusion of the kind created by sub-standard housing?

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

(18 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/98

by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Aid granted to French agricultural sawmills under the EAGGF structural funds

The current reform of the EAGGF structural funds provides for the termination of all aid for agricultural sawmills which represent the last stage of forestry activity in France and account for a substantial proportion of jobs in rural areas.

At the same time measures are being taken in favour of similar undertakings in countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and notably EU applicant countries.

Without questioning the principle of EU aid for former East bloc countries, the protection of jobs in Europe must remain a major priority, notably in disadvantaged rural areas.

Should European structural fund aid not therefore be granted, as part of forestry policy, to sawmills in rural areas for the sake of the jobs they provide, so as to avoid any form of negative discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The Commission is well aware that forestry provides business for many timber-processing undertakings, mainly located in the countryside.

Article 28 of the proposal for a Regulation on support for rural development(1) (in which the "Forestry" chapter comprises Articles 27 to 30) provides for investment aid to be granted in rural areas throughout the Community for a number of purposes, including "to improve and rationalise the processing and marketing of forestry products"; however, to ensure that the aid contributes to safeguarding existing rural jobs and creating new ones without distorting competition by favouring certain firms or products, the provision specifies that "investments related to the use of wood as a raw material shall be limited to all working operations prior to industrial use".

It is true that there is no similar limitation of investment aid for the processing and marketing of forestry products to working operations prior to industrial use in Article 2 of the proposal for a Regulation on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe(2). However, the Commission intends that the implementing rules adopted in accordance with Article 12 of the proposal for a Regulation shall including provisions to ensure that investment aid has no discriminatory effects in the timber market.

(1) OJ C 170, 4.6.1998.

(2) OJ C 150, 16.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3262/98

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE) to the Commission

(22 October 1998)

Subject: Reforms in connection with implementation in Greece of projects under the Second CSF and Cohesion Fund and list of projects with identified shortcomings and defective work

A careful reading of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies' answer of 12 October 2120/98(1) leaves no doubt that it is not only the contractors but also the supervisory bodies who are responsible for the serious failings in the implementation of the projects. Moreover, a number of other important questions have been raised concerning the supervision of the projects and the changes introduced after the proposals by the joint steering committee made up of Greek and Community experts. Recently, not only were serious shortcomings identified but also variances of as much as 90 %. If these irregularities are taken together with a number of recent road accidents attributed to poor road surfacing, the responsibility is enormous and rests not only with the Greeks but also the Community as joint funder of the projects.

1. What reforms has the joint committee proposed, apart from setting up the ESPEL quality control mechanism, and which of these have been adopted and implemented in Greek law?

2. Why was there such a delay in ordering thorough checks to be carried out i.e. until 1 July 1998, when serious shortcomings had already been identified in completed projects and projects in progress?

3. How are checks carried out on projects, i.e. are spot checks carried out once the work is completed but not during construction by the supervisor of the project and the national body responsible for implementation of the project?

4. In which projects were shortcomings identified? Which national bodies were responsible for implementation of those projects and what is their responsibility? Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of this information.

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

(20 November 1998)

1. In addition to the setting up of Espel, which acts as a third party inspection body, a modernisation plan covering the directorate concerned within the Ministry of Public Works is under way.

2. Espel began its work on 1 January 1998. It was felt that, in the first six months, large numbers of sampling checks were preferable to exhaustive checks on only a few projects.

3. The checks carried out by Espel on projects receiving Community part-finance take place irrespective of the stage the projects have reached, i.e. even if they have been completed.

4. The Commission does not have a list of the projects checked by Espel and it would point out that the number of tests carried out by sampling on each project examined in the first six months does not allow specific projects to be singled out.

As it stated in the answer to the Written Question referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission intends to follow developments closely.

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3488/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: European Union publicity material

Will the Commission please indicate the cost of the publicity material currently being distributed to British schools concerning the European Union and who bears this cost?

Would the Commission agree that any such material distributed in Member States which concerns the benefits of EU membership and participation in the euro should present both sides of the argument, both for and against?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The policy of the Commission's representation in the United Kingdom is not to circulate publications except upon request.

No general publicity material about the Community is being distributed to British schools by the representation in the United Kingdom. However at the request of British teachers, publications such as "Euroquest - a trail of questions and answers about the EU" are sent to schools at their request. These publications are written by British teachers and are intended to be used for teaching purposes. One million copies of this particular title were printed in 1998 at a cost of ECU 204 547.

No material advocating the euro or the United Kingdom's participation in the euro zone is being circulated anywhere in the United Kingdom by the representation. The representation respects the position of the British government and regards possible participation in the euro as a matter for the British Parliament and people. The representation, again only on request, provides information on activities concerning the euro in other Member States, at European level and internationally.

Finally, no funds have been made available for the promotion of the euro by the representation in the United Kingdom and the British government has not signed a convention with the Commission.