ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Extra virgin olive oil

The Italian national consumers' union has protested against the planned amendment of the international rules governing the marketing of olive oil, shortly to be incorporated into a Community regulation.

1. Is it true that, as a result of this amendment, any extra virgin oil imported into Italy from abroad may be called 'Italian' provided it is merely filtered in Italy and supplemented with a very small amount of national virgin oil?

2. If so, does the Commission not consider that this is a case of 'legalized fraud' since consumers will not know what area the purchased virgin oil comes from?

3. Will the principle of controlled origin applied to other products, such as wine and cheese, no longer be applied to olive oil?

4. What action does the Commission intend to take to guarantee transparency and designation of origin for oil, and prevent murky and unacceptable practices from being legalized?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3201/97 and E-3383/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

It should first be stated that under the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) commercial standard for olive oil and olive-residue oil, the practices to which the Honourable Members refer may confer the origin of the country where the processes of filtering and the addition of national olive oil are carried out on the resulting product.

It is precisely to avoid the repetition of such practices that the Commission asked the IOOC to look into the modification of this standard to, amongst other things, establish stricter and more transparent rules for conferring origin.

Modification of the IOOC commercial standard on the definition of the country of origin will be examined during the 77th session of the IOOC in Turkey from 17 to 21 November 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3102/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Council (9 October 1997)

Subject: Catholic church in Russia

I have learnt from reliable sources that Russian President Boris Yeltsin is about to sign a law approved by the Duma on 23 June and by the Council senators on 4 July 1997 which will reduce the Catholic church to a simple sect with very limited rights.

Not only would the oecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic churches be compromised, but a fundamental human right, freedom of religion enshrined in Article 18, would be violated.

What is the Council doing to stop this serious and unjust act?

Should not the Council, the Commission and the EP take joint action and set up a committee of inquiry to safeguard the rights of Russian Catholics who have embraced the Catholic faith and protect the Catholic church?

The Catholic religion can never be regarded as equivalent to a sect like so many in the world that have often been created for purely financial ends.

Answer (19 January 1998)

In common with other countries sharing the same concerns, the European Union * in particular by making appropriate representations * firmly requested the Russian authorities not to adopt the law in question, emphasizing the central importance attached by the Union to equitable treatment of all religions in accordance with internationally recognized principles, which Russia has undertaken to comply with.

Now that this law has been adopted, the Council will keep a close watch to see that it is applied in accordance with Russia's international commitments, including those undertaken within the Council of Europe.

The Council has not learnt of the occurrence of any cases of persecution of Russian nationals of the Christian or other faiths, following adoption of this law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: JRC in Ispra

There have been repeated complaints from the staff at the JRC in Ispra that work allocation does not take due account of the specific qualifications of the staff concerned.

How is it that Italian members of staff with degrees in subjects such as law, economics and politics are almost never used in appropriate posts while scientific staff with no relevant experience or training are used in administrative posts?

Is it merely a coincidence that the latter are not Italian?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The Commission selects candidates by means of internal procedures and, if these fail to produce results, through subsequent external procedures. The publication of vacancies fully complies with the rules which enable anyone with the qualifications for the post to apply.

In accordance with the Staff Regulations for Officials and the Rules applicable to other servants, applicants are selected without reference to race, creed or sex.

In a workplace largely involved with scientific and technical matters, even applicants with a technical training can apply for administrative posts. At all events, and in line with the Staff Regulations, their ability to discharge the duties of the post to be filled is evaluated by reference not only to their qualifications, but also to their acquired knowledge.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/97 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Council (23 October 1997)

Subject: Violation of European law by the Italian Republic

1. Is there any conflict between EU law and the Italian regulation to the effect that a Union citizen (whatever his country of origin) is required to submit a certificate of residence in order to register a vehicle in Italy?

2. Is there any conflict between EU law and the Italian regulation to the effect that an Italian citizen who is registered in the AIRE list (for Italian citizens resident abroad) but runs a business in Italy may not register a vehicle in Italy without a certificate of residence?

Answer (26 January 1998)

It is not the Council's responsibility to determine whether Italian legislation on vehicle registration is compatible with the EC Treaty.

The Treaty has entrusted that task to the Commission and the Court of Justice (see Articles 155 and 164 of the Treaty).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1997)

Subject: The Warsaw Convention and an Essex resident held hostage in Kuwait - claim against British Airways

Given the long-standing complaint from Essex resident Mr Edward Hammett and 367 passengers of British Airways flight 149, that the airline recklessly and intentionally landed in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in the Gulf War, does the Commission agree that the draft regulation concerning compensation to passengers in cases of air accidents sets a precedent in favour of a European Union competence in relation to the Warsaw Convention? Will the Council therefore commit itself to supporting a new regulation which would enable the European Commission to investigate the potential liability of air carriers in relation to complaints other than those arising from accidents, whether or not particular aspects of the Warsaw Convention apply?

Does the Commission agree that complainants such as Mr Hammett could only benefit if such legislation were passed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3485/97 and E-3487/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

The unfortunate and new distressing experience of the passengers on board British Airways flight 149, which landed in Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion, does not appear to amount to an infringement of Community law. Since there is no relevant Community legislation, an investigation by the Commission would not be justifiable. For the same reason, the rights of the passengers depends upon the application of relevant national laws and the Warsaw Convention.

The Commission is, however, looking into the possibility of making further progress in air transport consumer policy. A comprehensive study assessing the conditions included in air transport contracts has been completed and recently submitted to the Commission. The Commission is now consulting all interested parties on the results of this study.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/97 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Asia initiative for reproductive health

Since the agreement was signed between the European Commission and UNFPA (30.1.1997) to launch a 'reproductive health initiative in Asia', how many and which NGOs have received grants for implementation of projects under this initiative? How much are these grants and in which countries are they operational? When does the Commission anticipate that the initiative will be finalised?

What is the process whereby decisions are taken between the European Commission and UNFPA? Which organisation is ultimately responsible for coordinating the initiative?

Does the Commission plan to replicate this initiative in other geographical regions, for example Latin America or the Arab World?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1997)

Since the agreement was signed with the United Nations fund for population (UNFPA) on 31 January 1997, the programme has progressed accordingly to its action plan which included a one year preparation phase with the following activities:

- a first phase of in-country consultations - with the participation of European and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Commission delegation representatives and national authorities - in order to establish a common focus for intervention for any given country. These consultations have already been carried out in Cambodia, Laos, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Vietnam;

- the preparation for implementation, through two workshops organised in Brussels, and with European NGO participation, on cycle management and selection of common indicators.

The format presentation and guidelines for project presentation are finalised and sent to all European or national NGOs.

Manifestation of interest has come from 17 European NGOs so far and the first action plan is expected to be ready by the end of 1997. It will initially address three countries, Pakistan, Nepal and Cambodia. However preparation is rapidly progressing for the other countries. The UNFPA is responsible for the project evaluation. The final decision on the programme plan is taken by the Commission on documented justification of the pre-selection.

As regards the extension of the initiative to other geographical areas, the Commission will take into account all information on progress in Asia for an eventual decision to replicate the programme in other regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3139/97 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Case C-150/97 at the Court of Justice of the European Communities

On 17 April 1997 the Commission brought proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the Republic of Portugal for its failure to comply with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985.

In view of the importance of the application of this Directive in Portugal and the implications for the other Member States, can the Commission say, as the plaintiff, what stage has been reached in the proceedings brought before the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

On 17 April 1997 the Commission brought an action against Portugal before the Court of Justice for incorrect transposition into national law of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )). The case (C-150/97) was not brought for failure to apply the Directive correctly; the problem is that several of its provisions have not been formally transposed into Portuguese law correctly. A summary of the complaints has been published in the Official Journal ((OJ C 181, 14.6.1997. )).

Portugal contested these complaints in its defence. Following the Commission's replication, the Portuguese authorities presented their rejoinder. The written procedure is now closed. It will be followed by the oral procedure, for which the Court has yet to fix an opening date. Only at the end of this procedure will the Court deliver its judgment.

It is worth noting that, while contesting the complaints against Portugal, the Portuguese authorities have nonetheless adopted Decree-Law No 278/97 of 8 October 1997 (published in Diário da República No 233 of 8 October 1997, I Series-A, page 5440) amending Decree-Law No 186/90 of 6 June 1990 and Regulatory Decree No 38/90 of 27 November 1990, which transpose the Directive, 'in order to transpose the Directive in question in its entirety.' The Commission is currently examining how these amendments tie in with the complaints raised in Case C-150/97.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3210/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Underground railway in Thessaloniki

There is much debate in Greece about the possible construction of an underground railway in the northern port area of the city of Thessaloniki. It was recently announced that construction was to be suspended following notification from the Commission that the regulations governing the award of public works contracts in the EU had been infringed.

What is the Commission's official position on the construction of the underground railway in Thessaloniki and what exactly are its objections to the work being carried out?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

The Commission received a complaint concerning the procedure for awarding the concession for an underground railway at Thessaloniki, and is currently looking into the matter. It is investigating whether the procedure followed complies with Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54. )) and with the provisions of the EC Treaty and, more specifically, whether the tenders selected for the negotiation phase satisfy not only the technical but also the economic and financial requirements laid down in the tender specifications.

The Commission has had numerous contacts with the Greek Government and interested parties with a view to obtaining the information and clarifications it needs in order to investigate the matter. It has also requested the Greek authorities not to award the contract definitively until it has completed its enquiries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4106/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Progress in realizing Community initiatives and Cohesion Fund projects in Greece

Can the Commission provide comparative analytical tables showing progress to date in realizing Community initiatives and Cohesion Fund projects for each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 October 1997)

Subject: Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC

Does the Commission think there is sufficient basis in Directive 77/91/EEC ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1. )) to pursue action against any government for actions taken which were in breach of this directive, in a period between the coming into force of the directive and the amendment of national legislation?

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

The Commission may initiate proceedings against a Member State which, in its opinion, has failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law. This principle is, of course, applicable to Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1996 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. The appropriateness and extent of such proceedings may, however, be assessed only on the basis of each specific case and in the light of the Member State and item of national legislation concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3564/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Commission communication on tax coordination (COM(97) 495)

At the Ecofin meeting of 13 October 1997, this Commission Communication was debated for the first time. The document proposes a package of measures to tackle what it calls 'harmful tax competition'. The Council called on the Commission to bring forward a new Communication, by 12 November at the latest, taking into account the results of this meeting and of the meeting of the Tax Policy Group of 20 October. Ministers unanimously underlined their intention to reach political agreement on this matter at the Ecofin meeting on 1 December 1997.

With regard to the taxation of capital income, Point 19 III of the Communication states that 'every Member State should either operate a minimum withholding tax or provide information on savings income to other Member States'. Point 19 V then states 'the arrangements for checking the fiscal residence of beneficiaries should not be too cumbersome'.

1. What investigations has the Commission made into possible arrangements?

2. What have these investigations shown?

3. What are the financial implications of checking the fiscal residence of beneficiaries for the Community and the Member States authorities?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3563/97, E-3564/97, E-3565/97, E-3566/97 and E-3567/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member both to its new communication of 5 November 1997 ((COM(97) 564 final. )) and the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

Within these conclusions, the Council approved a text on the taxation of savings containing four points that might form the basis for a new proposal for a directive.

As was anticipated by the Commission in its own above mentioned communication, it is the Commission's intention to present such a proposal very quickly, in principle by April 1998.

The Commission considers it premature to comment at the present stage on the sensitive and delicate questions raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is still reflecting and its position will be clearly stated in the proposal for a directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Implementation of Community environment legislation

In making a number of amendments to certain laws and draft laws, the Greek Government is carrying out a systematic assault on the natural environment in Greece on the pretext of increasing its take-up rate of Community funds. This process began with abolishing the publication of Ministerial decisions approving the environmental criteria for projects of major economic significance and the method of approving the terms and conditions for building and operating large-scale projects by the Greek Parliament so that no checks are made on the quality of the EIAs or on whether the conditions laid down are adequate.

Furthermore, the recent Law on Industry also abolished the need for prior approval of the location of an industry. Article 4 of Law 2516/97 abolishes the need for prior approval of the location of industrial activities before they are established, which means in practice that hazardous industrial activities may be set up without taking account of the broader planning and environmental implications. Moreover, a recent law on the regions abolished the fundamental statutory requirement to carry out an EIA before commencing works, even including work to set up landfill sites. (Article 23 of Law 2503/97 allows contracts for creating landfill sites toto be awarded before any EIA has been carried out). Finally, a recent draft law already before the Greek Parliament attempts to abolish the role and the responsibilities of the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planing and Public Works (Article 59) by transferring some of its basic powers to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Given that such measures are contrary to the environment policy defined in Article 130r of the Treaty, will the Commission say in what way the above actions are consistent with Article 7 of the Regulation on the Structural Funds which states that: 'Projects financed by the Structural Funds must be consistent with EU policies, particularly those concerning environmental protection' and what measures will it take to compel the relevant Greek authorities to respect and implement existing Community law?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3297/97 and E-3421/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

Member States are obliged to communicate to the Commission any legislative act transposing Community legislation as well as related amendments.

The Commission is not aware of the recent amendments to certain laws which, according to the Honourable Member, were introduced by the Greek government in the framework of the environmental impact assessment, and which might be contrary to Community environment policy and legislation.

Because of the seriousness of the matters raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities in order to ensure that any amendments or new laws concerning the environmental impact assessment are in conformity with Community legislation and policy in the field of the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Attempts to circumvent environmental legislation in Greece

The highly reputable Greek Ornithological Society recently announced that environmental legislation in Greece - and by extension the protection of the natural environment in that country - was under attack because the Greek Government was tabling a large number of amendments to various bills with the aim of 'loosening up' environmental provisions so as to overcome obstacles to the take-up of funds for major projects.

The same organisation states that 'the countdown for environmental legislation began with the abolition of the publication of ministerial decisions approving the environmental conditions of projects of major economic importance'.

The lack of transparency of the entire procedure raises vital questions regarding the effective protection of the natural environment in Greece; moreover, the appalling fact has come to light that heavy industries can now be established even in ecologically sensitive regions protected by Community legislation, and notably in regions covered by the Ramsar Convention.

Will the Commission give its official views on this matter and say how it intends to make clear to the Greek authorities that they have a duty effectively to protect the natural environment?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3297/97 and E-3421/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1997)

Member States are obliged to communicate to the Commission any legislative act transposing Community legislation as well as related amendments.

The Commission is not aware of the recent amendments to certain laws which, according to the Honourable Member, were introduced by the Greek government in the framework of the environmental impact assessment, and which might be contrary to Community environment policy and legislation.

Because of the seriousness of the matters raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities in order to ensure that any amendments or new laws concerning the environmental impact assessment are in conformity with Community legislation and policy in the field of the environment.