ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Degree courses in music in universities

The teaching of arts such as music remains outwith the university system in certain Member States.

Can the Commission tell me whether it intends to push for the introduction of music as a university degree subject in the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

The Honourable Member will be aware that the Member States alone are reponsible for the structure and functioning of their education systems and that the Commission has no power to intervene to change them.

Nevertheless, the Commission does have some scope for intervention in educational matters through encouraging cooperation between Member States, and this could apply to degree courses in music.

More precisely, the Socrates/Erasmus programme now has a new initiative under the title 'thematic networks', one of which is an 'arts-music' network. This network consists of eleven Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and three countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In all of these countries, music is taught in higher education.

The aim of these networks is to review the situation in the area of study in question, improve the level of teaching and learning, and identify and disseminate examples of good practice. In this context there is no doubt that, through cooperation between universities, the Socrates/Erasmus action could have a positive impact on Member States where music cannot as yet be studied at university level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3562/97 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: French lorry and fishing-boat blockades - compensation for affected road hauliers still not forthcoming

Compensation for road hauliers who were adversely affected by the blockades carried out by French lorry drivers and fishing boats is still urgently awaited. Given the importance of compensation to the survival of the road haulage firms affected, does the European Commission intend to take positive action to secure an immediate response from the French authorities?

Further, is the Commission aware of any steps the French Government has taken recently to ensure that the Prefectures dealing with the claims are doing so in an expeditious and efficient manner?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

As the Honourable Member will know, the Commission has no legal authority to intervene in compensation cases arising from the blockades in France since compensation arrangements are established and governed by national law.

However, the French authorities have been reminded both in writing and in personal interventions by the responsible members of the Commission of the need to ensure appropriate compensation for those road hauliers directly affected.

The French authorities have also agreed to provide a detailed report to the Commission on how claims are progressing. Moreover, prior to a meeting convened by the Commission on 23 September 1997 with representatives of road hauliers whose compensation claims were still outstanding, a French delegation met the Commission to set out how their authorities were dealing with the claims. The Commission has subsequently also indicated to the French authorities the nature of complaints received regarding processing of compensation claims, asking them to take these into account and report on progress.

The French authorities indicated that they had issued three circulars to Prefectures setting out how such claims were to be processed. A team had also been set up within the Ministry of the Interior to ensure that any problems with processing claims within the Prefectures could be resolved.

The Commission will continue to make representations, taking into account the undertakings given publicity by members of the French Government to their counterparts in other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3232/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Problems concerning the implementation of the PACTE border region action programme

According to allegations by Greek participants in the PACTE border region action programme, major delays are occurring in the release of appropriations earmarked for measures under the programme.

These delays appear to be caused by inefficient administration of the programme by the PACTE office in Strasbourg (AER) which is failing to release the funds, although all the necessary supporting documentation has been produced and submitted. It also appears that similar complaints have been made by local and municipal authorities in other Member States participating in this and other regional cooperation programmes.

Is the Commission aware of this, to what does it attribute these delays and what measures will it take to ensure that regular funding is restored?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The question raised concerns one of the allocations granted to the PACTE programme in 1993. This programme was financed through a global grant allocated to the Assembly of European Regions for monitoring the management of projects. At the beginning of 1997, the Commission, on the basis of reports submitted to it, paid the organisation in question the totality of Community part-financing due under the various allocations granted to that organisation since 1993.

As a result of ex post checks carried out on each of the projects by the management office of the Assembly of European Regions, it was found that in certain cases the amounts of eligible expenditure were different from the amounts declared by project leaders in their final report. Before paying the last instalment, the Assembly of the European Regions asked the project leaders to provide it with the supporting documents for all the expenditure they had incurred. The Assembly informed the Commission that the majority did this and received the balance due.

As for the projects for which the balance has not been paid to date, insofar as project leaders were not able to produce the details requested within the time limit specified, their account will be closed on the basis only of the expenditure considered eligible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3817/97 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation

Heading A-3059 of the 1998 General Budget refers to the Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, as well as adopted Amendment 789.

The exact location of this centre is not specified in the texts made available to Members nor in the justification incorporated into the amendment concerned. Therefore, could the European Commission tell us where this Research Institute for Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation is situated?

What activites did it carry out during the period 1996-1997?

Which programmes were carried out as an extension of the Barcelona Conference?

What interparliamentary meetings had it organized?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation (MEDEA) is located in Brussels (21, rue de la Tourelle, Bruxelles 1040) and has been in operation since April 1996.

In 1996 and 1997, after the Barcelona Conference its main activities were setting up a social, economic and political database on the Mediterranean and Arab regions, which can be accessed on Internet and is also available on paper (there are already 280 files in English and French), establishing an Internet bulletin board (Medeatrade) to facilitate contact between European and Mediterranean businesses, organising meetings and parliamentary visits to improve relations between the Community and certain Arab countries, priority being given to the Mediterranean region, and providing organisational support for the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation.

Two conferences were held between European and Arab members of parliament, one in Amman from 29 November to 1 December 1996 and one in Valetta on 8 and 9 November 1997. The Dubai Conference on cooperation for the peace process, held on 3 to 5 April 1997 at the initiative of the Community and the League of Arab States, was attended by about a hundred experts, businessmen, diplomats, members of parliament, European and Arab officials and the Union's Special Envoy for the peace process, Mr Moratinos.

From 10 to 14 October 1997 MEDEA and the Omani Diplomatic Institute organised a series of conferences for Omani diplomats on the following subjects: the role of Europe in resolving regional conflicts; the challenges of the twenty-first century for Europe; Europe and the problem of water in the Middle East; the Community and the peace process in the Middle East; Europe and the new world order. On 1 July 1996 MEDEA attended the seminar, held in Paris at the 'commissariat du plan', on the globalisation of the economy and regionalisation in the European-Mediterranean area. Together with Prince Hassan, on the latter's initiative, it organised and participated in the 'Conference on Islamophobia' in Amman on 7 and 8 June 1997, and contacts were established with a number of Egyptian, Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian research centres, with a view to developing joint activities and publications.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3963/97 by Maj Theorin (PSE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

The European Parliament has on several occasions called for human rights to be respected in Turkey. The EU-Turkey customs union was adopted in spite of evidence that Turkey was then, and is still, committing serious breaches of human rights and breaches of democracy. Reports are still coming out of Turkey which show that human rights continue to be infringed there. The human rights situation in Turkey is far from satisfactory.

How does the Commission propose to hasten the prospect of Turkey's respecting human rights and becoming a stable democracy?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (12 January 1998)

The Commission never fails to impress on the Turkish authorities the importance that the Community attaches to improvements in the human rights situation and the continuation of the democratisation process.

In Agenda 2000 the Commission noted that 'despite political recognition of the need for improvement and certain recent legislative changes, Turkey's record on upholding the rights of the individual and freedom of expression falls well short of standards in the EU' ((COM(97) 2000 final. )).

Since 1993 the Commission has supported many Turkish non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working to promote human rights and strengthen civil society in the country. It has granted ECU 6 million (ECU 3 million in 1997 alone) for over sixty projects. The Commission intends to continue and step up this cooperation.

The Commission communication of 15 July 1997 on the further development of relations with Turkey includes proposals to help European and Turkish NGOs, and argues that the Community should go on backing Turkey's efforts to resolve its problems and continue its integration into the Community ((COM (97) 394 final. )).

The communication also proposes cooperation to help the Turkish government enforce international conventions on human rights and apply the relevant domestic legislation. The Turkish authorities have already officially notified the Commission of their readiness to cooperate in this field. Bilateral discussions for the identification of projects will begin shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3440/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Free movement of captains

Under Netherlands law, a ship sailing under the Netherlands flag must have a Netherlands captain. Can the Commission indicate in which other Member States such a provision exists?

Is this exception to the ban on discrimination in Article 6 justified by Article 48(4), Article 55 or any other article of the EC Treaty?

Is the Commission willing to take steps to bring about 'free movement of captains' in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The Commission has always recognised that on board ships flying the flag of a Member State, the functions of master and chief officer as deputy master require the exercise of public authority in the sense of Article 48(4) of the EC Treaty.

The responsibility of the master for the exercise of public authority on board ships is particularly related to the safety of the crew or passengers and their life, as well as protection of the marine environment. Member States can require that the posts of the ship's master and first officers are reserved to their own nationals and Article 48(3) of the EC Treaty specifies that freedom of movement for workers could be subject to limitation on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

According to the Commission's information, Belgium, Danmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom (for certain vessels), have legislation requiring the master to be a national and Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal also require the deputy master to be a national.

Given that current arrangements comply with Community law, the Commission will not be proposing change.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Securing of lorry loads

Does the Commission believe that there is a case for European legislation governing the securing of lorry loads generally, or does the Commission believe that, while such EU legislation exists for dangerous goods, it can be left to national authorities to introduce and implement such general safety measures for the securing of lorry loads as they deem necessary according to national law?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

There are limitless ways to load vehicles and an infinite number of types and shapes of objects to load on to vehicles. The Commission consequently considers that Community legislation on this matter would either be so general to cover all options as to be of little effective value, or so detailed as to require thousands of pages of law. The Commission does not, therefore, intend to compile proposals for such legislation.

The Commission is not aware of grounds for questioning the adequacy of national legislation on the securing of loads on lorries and there are no current plans for Commission action on this matter. Naturally, there is continuing need for proper application and effective enforcement of the national laws that are relevant to such matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3718/97 by Stelios Argyros (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Preservation of the ancient temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassae (Phigaleia)

Bassae in Phigaleia (in the Prefecture of Ileia in the Peloponnese in Greece) is the site of the ancient temple of Apollo Epikourios which unquestionably constitutes an important part of Europe's cultural heritage.

However, this temple is now badly damaged, and immediate action is needed if it is to be saved. Its frieze is exhibited in the British Museum.

Does the Commission share this concern for the survival of this temple, and can it say:

1. whether the Greek Government has shown any interest in, or set in motion any procedure for, the return of the frieze to its place of origin, so that it can be exhibited in its natural setting?

2. whether the Greek Government has submitted - or intends to submit in the immediate future - within the framework of the Community Support Framework (either in the Regional Operational Programme for the Peloponnese or as part of section 3 of the Regional Operational Programme for Tourism and Culture) a proposal for funding the construction of a museum next to the temple to house all or part of the frieze and other architectural features which are at present scattered over the surrounding area?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

The Commission acknowledges the importance of the protection conservation of the ancient temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassae, Greece. It is with this preoccupation in mind that in the framework of its action in favour of the European architectural heritage in 1984, the Commission supported with ECU 33 000 conservation works carried out at the temple in the period 1984-1985.

Furthermore, and in the context of the framework Community support (CCA) 1994-1999 and under the operational programme (0P) for western Greece (sub programme 2, measure 3) the Regional development fund cofinances the project 'Protection of the temple of Epikourios Apollon' with the amount of 1.6 MECU. However, no request has been submitted for the construction of a museum either under the regional operational programme or under the CCA operational programme for 'Tourism-culture'.

As to whether the Greek authorities have shown any interest or set in motion any procedures for the return of the temple's frieze by the British museum to its place of origin, the Commission has no competence to intervene. It is the exclusive responsibity of the two Member States concerned to deal with the issue. However, the Commission is not aware of any motion or request on behalf of the Greek authorities for the return of the temple's frieze by the British museum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3863/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Studies on Youth Policies in the European Union

In December 1994 the European Commission presented a study on youth policies in the European Union - structures and training, based on research carried out in 1992 and 1993.

This study proved extremely valuable for providing information on and sharing experience of local, national and Community youth policies.

Does the Commission intend, in the coming months, to update this study or prepare fresh studies comparing youth policies in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (12 January 1998)

The Commission plans to update the study 'Youth policies in the European Union * structures and training' during the course of 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4097/97 by David Morris (PSE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Human resource development and funding

The Commission proposes four strands of human resource development under Objective 3. Will these be duplicated under Objectives 1 and 2? Further, will the proposed ESF regulation specify the financial allocation between these strands and if so, what will that allocation be?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

The Commission is currently preparing its proposals for the regulations governing the structural funds for 2000-2006 and plans to adopt its proposals before Easter 1998. The basis for these proposals is given in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )).

It is proposed that the new objective 3, which addresses the four areas mentioned in Agenda 2000, should have two main functions:

- to provide the common framework for all European social fund (ESF) interventions (i.e. in objectives 1, 2 and 3), providing consistency of approach across European and national human resources development strategies on the one hand and regional interventions on the other;

- to operate as a self-contained objective, financing human resources development measures outside the objective 1 and 2 regions, thus ensuring a coherent Community-wide human resources development strategy.

The details regarding the implementation of objective 3, including the question of programming and financial priorities, remain under consideration and the Commission's proposals will be given in the draft regulations presented in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/97 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE), Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Revision of the Greek Community Support Framework

The Greek Government recently called for the revision of the Greek Community Support Framework 1994-1999 (CSF) and in particular the transfer of appropriations from sectors in which implementation has been very slow to other sectors with a better take-up rate. The request follows the continuing inability of the Greek Government consistently and promptly to implement the various programmes of the CSF which it agreed on with the Commission after revising it itself and which after over three and a half years shows an overall take-up rate of only 31% (July 1997). In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. What is the take-up and implementation rate of Greek CSF appropriations so far, both as a whole and by axis and sector?

2. Which programmes and projects are targeted by the proposals for the transfer of appropriations which the Greek Government has submitted in its request for the revision of the CSF, and into which sectors and programmes does it wish these appropriations to be channelled?

3. How does the Commission view the request for the transfer of appropriations from major infrastructure networks of European importance, such as the Egnatia Road project or the completion of the natural gas project, to other projects?

4. Is the Greek Government's request for a revision of the CSF linked to the transfer of projects which will not be completed before the expiry of the second CSF to the third CSF, and if so, what are these projects?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

1. According to the information given to the Monitoring Committee on 30 and 31 October 1997, the actual rate of implementation (commitment appropriations) of the priorities of the Community Support Framework (CSF) at the end of 1997, in relation to the total for 1994-99, is as follows:

>TABLE>

Average rate of implementation of the CSF at the end of 1997 in relation to 1994-99 42%.

With regard to payment appropriations, the period for implementation of actual payments for operations part-financed under the CSF closes on 31 December 2001.

2. The Greek proposals aim to transfer appropriations between and inside operational programmes. In theory, the majority of the programmes are concerned. Since the guidelines agreed upon between the Greek authorities and the Commission at the above-mentioned Monitoring Committee meeting have not yet been formalised, no exact data is available at present.

3. The Commission considers that every effort must be made to achieve the main aims of this CSF, particularly, to achieve the ambitious objectives for the major projects, namely Egnatia, natural gas and cadastral registers.

4. Some of the proposals do indeed concern projects which are unlikely to be completed during the current period. However, the Commission is insisting that every effort should be made to make the greatest possible progress on these projects before the end of this CSF.