ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4001/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Eel fisheries in Europe

A group of researchers (EC Concerted Action AIR A94-1939) recently described the size and condition of eel stocks in Europe. In their final report they conclude that the situation in Europe with regard to eels is grave. One reason for this is that the migration of elvers from the sea is declining sharply. The researchers also point out that elver fishing takes up 97% of all young eels as soon as they have reached European waters, mostly for sale to China.

1. Does the Commission share the view that the situation in Europe with regard to eels gives cause for concern?

2. Does it agree that the international character of the problem calls for coordinated measures at European level?

3. Does it share the opinion that the large scale removal of elvers to third countries is a threat to eel stocks in Europe?

4. If so, is it willing in the near future to restrict the sale of elvers to third countries and to encourage the placing of elvers in European waters?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3994/97 and E-4001/97 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of the valuable and growing contribution of the eel cultivation sector to European aquaculture and of the importance of the eel fisheries in Member States. The dependence on supplies of juvenile eels caught in the wild will remain for so long as it continues to be impossible to complete the life cycle of this species in captivity. Juvenile eel is also used for stocking purposes and is important for the commercial fisheries.

Glass eels are caught as they migrate up rivers on the final leg of their migration from the Sargasso Sea. The competence of managing glass eel fisheries has up to now lain primarily with Member States and a range of national control measures exist, depending on the traditional patterns of exploitation and use. Five Member States ban commercial fishing for glass eels and elvers, while a regional ban exists in a sixth Member State. In the southern Member States where there is a tradition of consuming smaller eels, glass eel fishing is permitted but controls are applied to fishing gear, open season or fishing and dealing licences.

A recently completed report on management of the European eel (concerted action of the agricultural and agro-industry research programme (AIR) A94-1939) has shown that returns of glass eels have fallen. This is a matter of concern and the Commission in September 1997 requested the International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) to provide advice on possible management actions to ensure a sustainable development of the eel fisheries within the Community. This advice should be provided in 1998 and any possible proposal on management measures, including restocking, will be deferred until then.

The Commission will, on the basis of the analyses mentioned above and any other assessment data necessary, take any action it deems appropriate to restrict exports of elvers from the Community. World Trade Organisation rules would have to be respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3228/97 by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: European sticker on toll motorways

Some European Union Member States have introduced a European sticker on their motorways which allows heavy goods vehicles to pay a uniform preferential fee.

Other Member States, by contrast, refuse to grant this economic advantage to carriers using their motorways. This situation creates harmful distortions on the European Union's motorway network, which have repercussions on transport costs.

Does the Commission not consider it desirable and necessary to propose that a 'European sticker' facilitating the use of the motorway networks by carriers be introduced and uniformly applied?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Commission believes that the parallel application of tolls in some Member States and a common sticker in other Member States, does not constitute a distortion of competition. All users of a Member State's road network are subject to the same system that applies to residents of that Member State.

The two systems (tolls and user charge stickers) are both envisaged in Directive 93/89/EEC ((On the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures; OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )) which lays down the general conditions of their application.

However, the Commission considers that road tolls (based on kilometres driven) are better related to the real costs arising from the use of the infrastructure than the user charges (sticker) which are based on the permitted duration of the use of the road and not on the real use of the roads.

That is why the Commission favours a generalised application of road tolls for heavy goods vehicles according to methods which ensure non-discrimination and free-flowing traffic, particularly using electronic systems which do not require vehicles to stop.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3885/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Motor vehicles intended for the transport of dangerous goods

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive relating to motor vehicles and their trailers with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road and amending Directive 70/156/EEC in respect of the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (COM(96) 555 final - 96/0267 COD) ((OJ C 29, 30.1.1997, p. 17. )).

Directive 94/55/EC ((OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 7. )) transposed into Community law the provisions of the ADR agreement, including the rules on the manufacture of vehicles transporting dangerous goods by road. However, this directive does not stipulate that the construction characteristics of vehicles intended for the transport of dangerous goods should be accepted by the Member States. For this purpose, a specific directive needs to be adopted within the framework of European type-approval to guarantee free movement of vehicles within the Union on the basis of harmonized construction characteristics.

Will the Commission, and in particular DG VII, ensure that the benefits provided by the directive under consideration, Directive 94/55/EEC and Directive 96/86/EC ((OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 43. )) amending the latter, are not nullified by differing provisions on vehicle manufacture introduced by the competent authorities or other organizations?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

The Commission agrees that the requirements of Directive 94/55/EC as amended by Directive 96/86/EC of 13 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road, are sufficient to guarantee the free circulation of vehicles within the Community when transporting dangerous goods but not the registration of such vehicles in a Member State.

In fact the above mentioned Directive does not contain harmonised technical prescriptions concerning the construction of such vehicles allowing them to be type-approved and registered in another Member State.

In order to ensure the free circulation and the registration of the base vehicle in the Community the Commission has presented to the Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a Directive relating to the type approval of motor vehicles and their trailers to be used for the transport of dangerous goods.

Once this proposal is adopted, all vehicles fulfilling the requirements of the directive will be granted a Community type approval that will give them the right to be registered in each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3638/97 by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: EU-wide recognition of training in special needs teaching and social work professions in Berlin

The Berlin Senate is planning to introduce legislation on State recognition of special needs teaching and social work professions in Berlin (the Social Professions Recognition Act - SozBAG). The intention is change the training of social workers and special needs teachers (currently comprising three years of study plus practical training) by halving the period of practical training from the current 12 months to six, for a transitional period lasting at most until 31 December 2006.

Will the Commission state whether there will still be EU-wide recognition of training in special needs teaching and social work professions in Berlin, in view of the planned reduction in the period of training, entailing practical training lasting 12 months rather than six?

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

The Honourable Member's question refers to a similar situation to that raised in Written Question E-1936/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 122. )). The recognition of diplomas for special needs teachers and social workers, in the Member States in which these professions are regulated, is governed by the Community Directives which introduced the general system for the recognition of diplomas. Depending on the level of the studies covered by the diplomas, the relevant Directives are either Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. )), or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )).

Each Member State remains free to determine the level of qualifications required in order to work as a special needs teacher or social worker within its territory. The Directives did not harmonise training, but established a recognition system under which a diploma providing access to a given profession in a Member State must be recognised for the purpose of exercising the same profession in another Member State, despite differences between education and training systems. The relevant diploma is covered by the recognition arrangements established by Directive 92/51/EEC. That Directive provides that, in the event of substantial differences in duration or content between the training acquired by the migrant and the training required in the host Member State, the authorities in the host Member State may impose a compensatory measure (adaptation period or aptitude test). In certain cases, therefore, having regard to the duration of the new German diploma and the duration required in the host Member State, the application of one of these compensatory measures may be justified.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3946/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Freedom of expression for the Open Society Institute, Croatia

According to newspaper reports, the Open Society Institute, Croatia, has come under heavy pressure from President Tudjman or the government (International Herald Tribune, 25 November 1997, p. 6, 'Tudjman's Vendetta').

How true is this information, and what will the Commission do to improve freedom of expression and action for this and other institutes?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1998)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns, and those of the Council of Europe and international human rights organisations, about respect for freedom of expression and association in Croatia. The Commission considers that the Croatian government's recent legislative and judicial actions against civil society and human rights organisations, such as the Open society institute, as well as against independent media, create serious obstacles to the development of a pluralist democracy and to safeguarding human rights.

Respect for human rights is one of the conditions for the development of improved relations between Croatia and the Community. Indeed, freedom of expression and of association are specifically mentioned in the Council conclusions of 29 April 1997 setting out the conditions for the development of bilateral relations with the countries covered by the Community's regional approach towards South-Eastern Europe. Croatia's attitude towards non-governmental organisations promoting human rights and freedom of expression is relevant in this context.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3679/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (19 November 1997)

Subject: State repression in Burma

On 28 October 1997 several arrests were made as members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) tried to hold a meeting in an office in the Mayangone township on the outskirts of the Burmese capital, Rangoon. The activists had planned to hold a meeting with their leader Aung Saan Suu Kyi but the security forces set up barricades to prevent them from gaining access to her.

At the time of writing, eight of those arrested are still in custody. Human rights organizations have expressed fears that they may have been tortured.

Has the Council been made aware of this incident? What action has it taken? Will it raise the ongoing incidents of suppression of peaceful activity in Burma at the next EU/ASEAN meeting? If such incidents continue, will the Council consider fresh economic sanctions against Burma?

Answer (19 March 1998)

On 6 October 1997 the Council of the European Union decided to extend for a new period of six months the Common Position on Burma. This Position was initially adopted on 28 October 1996 ((OJ L 287/96, 8.11.1996. )) and contains administrative sanctions such as restricting movement of all military personnel of Burmese diplomatic missions in the European Union, bans all military equipment sales to Burma, imposes visa restrictions for members of the ruling council and their relatives as well as it suspends all high-level talks between the European Union and officials of the regime. As it is considered unlikely that the recent replacement of some members of the Burmese leadership, the dissolution of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) and the establishment of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) will lead to substantial changes, the policy of the Union remains for the time-being unchanged.

This policy is well known. The Union has on many occasions issued strong public statements deploring the human rights situation and the lack of democracy in Burma. Time and again the Union has urged the SLORC to enter into meaningful dialogue with all democratic opposition parties, including the National League for Democracy who had some of its members arrested on 28 October 1997.

The Union monitors closely the developments in Burma and underlines constantly with its international dialogue partners, especially the ASEAN States, the need for reform in Burma and the important role these countries have in pressuring the rulers in Rangoon to adopt change.

The Council bodies are currently reviewing the Common Position on Burma, adopted on 28 October 1996. There is a wide consensus in favour of renewal for a further period of six months from 29 April, on which date this Common Position expires. At present, the Council does not envisage additional measures such as economic sanctions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4060/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Proposed merger of Objectives 2 and 5b

The Commission has proposed merging the existing Objectives 2 and 5b into a new single Objective 2 for the period post-2000 devoted to reconversion of industrial, rural, urban and fishing-dependent regions

Can the Commission confirm that there will be separate ring-fenced financial allocations for each strand of the new Objective and that each strand will ensure programme funding for the full seven years of the next financial perspective? Will the Commission assure me that transitional arrangements for former Objective 2 and 5b regions are the same as those for Objective 1?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 February 1998)

The Commission proposes in Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) that the new objective 2 'should assist areas undergoing economic change (in industry or services), declining rural areas, crisis-hit areas dependent on the fishing industry or urban areas in difficulty'.

Each of the different types of area targeted by the new objective 2 would be identified by relevant socio-economic criteria. The Commission does not, however, consider it appropriate to introduce a rigidity of the kind which would result from separate ring-fenced financial allocations for each type of area.

As a unified objective, the planning period for the new programmes would be of the same duration for all areas covered.

The Commission proposes that transitional arrangements for ex-objective 1 regions, on the one hand, and ex-objective 2 and 5b areas, on the other, should reflect their differing circumstances. The level of financial transfers per capita to objective 2 and 5b areas is significantly lower that those for objective 1, which, as the least developed regions, are the top priority of the Community's structural policies.

Consequently, in Agenda 2000, the Commission proposes that the former objective 2 and 5b areas should enjoy 'limited financial support' during the transitional period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/97 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'.

1. How would the Commission ensure the compatibility and comparability of data in such an information exchange?

2. How would the Commission guarantee the security of the information involved in the information exchange?

3. What studies has the Commission undertaken to estimate the cost of the development and implementation of such a system?

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-3801/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (26 November 1997)

Subject: Equivalence of qualifications

In view of the fact that EU borders were opened in 1993 for qualifications and that some countries, particularly Italy, award qualifications on completion of studies which are not recognised in other EU Member States, will the Commission state whether or not it intends to request the Member States to bring about the equivalence of qualifications so that mobility of labour can finally be achieved in Europe?

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

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-85/95 ((OJ C 190, 24.7.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3719/97 by Stelios Argyros (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Information brochure published by the Common Research Centre

The European Research Centre (Commission, DG XII) recently issued a multifold information brochure in A4 x 8 format concerning the Joint Research Centres. This publication is printed on both sides and appears on 'illustration' paper with plastic surfacing.

Owing to its format, this publication is of questionable practical utility; moreover, owing to its composition, the paper is non-recyclable and is thus non-environmentally friendly.

However, it was undoubtedly very expensive to produce, despite attempts to cut the cost of the JRCs as part of the general austerity measures applied to Community research policy.

Will the Commission say:

- How much did this publication cost to produce?

- Which service approved the expenditure?

- What is believed to be purpose and expected benefit of this publication?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

The Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) plays a vital role in providing scientific assistance for Community policies.

Moreover, it has great potential for promoting innovation in European industry through its competitive activities, but this potential is not sufficiently well known as yet.

Consequently, an active approach to promoting the transfer of technology, collaborative research and training has been adopted, with a view to increasing the value added by the JRC for the individual and for European industry.

This approach also means that the JRC's activities have to be more clearly explained. The poster to which the Honourable Member refers was produced with this aim in mind. It cost ECU 6 114 for 10 000 copies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/97 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Access to French inland waterways

1. According to a report in the Scheepvaartkrant of 30 September 1997, foreign skippers in France are being excluded on journeys within France. In the South of France in particular cabotage itself is almost impossible. In addition on the freight markets in France there is apparently a categoric refusal to ship goods in France on non-French vessels. Can the Commission confirm these reports?

2. If so, what measures does the Commission intend to take against this violation of the free market principle and in particular against the cabotage directive?

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

The Commission is aware of an alleged discrimination against non-French barge-owners in the operation of the French 'tour de rôle' in inland waterway transport. It is clear that this alleged discrimination would be contrary to Community law and, in particular, to the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member State ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. )).

The Commission has contacted the French authorities with a view to verifying the existence or otherwise of the alleged discrimination.