ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2628/98

by Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Euro information campaign

The Commission is financing activities to inform the population of the Union about the euro.

What activities have been financed since 1997? What associations have been financed?

What sums have been invested? How can they be broken down?

What are the criteria for selecting activities and associations? Who follows and monitors their achievements?

What are the results? How are they evaluated?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Community finances measures to inform the public about the euro in the framework of the priority information programme. "The euro, a currency for Europe" (budget heading B3 306 - Information programme for European citizens (Prince)). The measure is carried out in interinstitutional partnership with Parliament. It was the subject of a memorandum from the Commission to the Council and Parliament in February 1998(1).

Expenditure under this heading includes joint financing with the Member States of joint communication plans on the euro provided for under conventions, the allocation of financial contributions to public bodies which engage in information campaigns contributing to the objectives of the measure, direct communication operations, and the production and dissemination of tools and information services on the euro.

In view of the large number of partners in these operations, the Commission is sending the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of Parliament a full list of the bodies involved under separate cover.

In 1997 expenditure amounted to ECU 30,96 million, including ECU 15,62 million for agreements with Member States, ECU 9,74 million for financial contributions and ECU 5,6 million for television information broadcasts and direct operations.

In allocating the financial contributions the Commission examines all partnership proposals to the institution. An observer from Parliament is regularly invited to participate in this work. The operation is presented to an advisory working party comprised of representatives of Parliament and the Commission, which produces progress reports periodically.

All the provisions in the Treaty and Financial Regulation regarding both internal and external audit apply as a matter of course to this operation, which has been regularly examined by the Court of Auditors.

The Commission coordinates and evaluates the work regularly, and periodic surveys and analyses enable it to measure the progress and impact of the information about the euro on the public.

(1) COM(98) 39 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Discharge of untreated sewage in Lisbon

Is the Commission aware that, according to Portuguese press reports, many newly opened waterfront restaurants in Lisbon are bypassing the public city sewage system and discharging completely untreated sewage into the Tagus? What steps will it take to curb this continual pollution of the Tagus Estuary?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

Under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, on the treatment of urban waste waters(1), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC(2) of 27 February 1998, Member States must ensure that sewer systems convey all urban waste waters to water reclamation works for treatment before being discharged into the recipient waters. The final deadline for this is 31 December 1998 in the case of urban areas having more than 10 000 equivalent inhabitants (an equivalent inhabitant is a unit of measurement representing the average organic load produced by one person within one day) whose urban effluents are discharged into waters that have been identified as sensitive by the Member States. For conurbations having more than 15 000 equivalent inhabitants whose urban effluents are discharged into waters that have not been identified as sensitive that deadline is 31 December 2000, while for small conurbations the relevant date is 31 December 2005.

The Commission is currently checking the criteria used by the Member States, including Portugal, to identify sensitive areas in terms of water quality. It will for this purpose satisfy itself, in particular, that the classification of the Tagus estuary conforms, since it has not been identified as a sensitive area by the Portuguese authorities.

The Commission has not been informed of any direct discharges of effluent from several Lisbon restaurants into the Tagus estuary. It will, in good time check that all conurbations, including Lisbon, comply with the provisions of the directive referred to above with regard to the collection and treatment of urban waste waters.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3101/98

by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Commission competition procedure

The latest competition for Commission officials had to be suspended because of flagrant irregularities.

1. Who is liable for the candidates' loss of income and travel expenses, some of them from as far as the USA?

2. What disciplinary action will be taken against the Commission officials involved who failed to take the action required to ensure the proper running of the recruitment competition?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2266/98

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Ban on exports of textile waste for recycling

Pursuant to Regulation (EEC) 259/93(1) companies are forbidden from exporting hazardous waste materials to countries which are not members of the OECD. In December 1996 the scope of this regulation was extended to the export of waste materials for recycling. Secondhand textiles are an example of the exports which are now prohibited.

This causes major problems to companies which export these textiles for reuse or recycling.

What exactly are the reasons why the Commission considers that secondhand textiles are waste materials?

Is the Commission aware of the ESC opinion (10/95) which criticizes the total ban on the export of products for recycling, in view of the economic and ecological importance of recycling?

What effect does this ban have on employment opportunities both inside and outside the Union?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The reasons for which secondhand textiles constitute waste materials are set out in the Commission's answer to Written Question E-107/98 by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten(2).

The Commission's amended proposal for a Council regulation establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste(3) would apply a control procedure (prior informed consent) to exports of non-hazardous wastes on the basis of the precautionary principle, but would prohibit exports of non-hazardous waste for recovery to non-OECD countries that have indicated they do not wish to receive such imports.

The Commission is aware of the opinion of the Economic and social committee to which the Honourable Member refers and of the economic and ecological issues involved. It is for these reasons that the Commission has proposed a control procedure, rather than a total ban which would have its greatest impact on some of the world's poorest countries with the most fragile economies. The Commission has however not made an assessment of the effects on employment.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 22.

(3) COM(94) 678 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3127/98

by Antonio Graziani (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Damage caused by flooding in the Versilia area

On 29 September 1998 the Versilia area of Tuscany was hit by heavy flooding which caused widespread damage to crops and housing.

The worst flooding occurred in the communes of Camaiore, Pietrasanta and Massarosa, where landslides destroyed nurseries and craft undertakings, tourist facilities and shops, which constitute the area's main economic activities.

Has this natural disaster come to the Commission's notice and will emergency aid be provided from the disaster fund?

Furthermore, are there plans to use, on the basis of an appropriate procedure, EAGGF and European Regional Development Fund appropriations to provide assistance and encouragement with the work of restoring agricultural land, commercial premises and housing to their former state?

Lastly, would the Commission not agree that it should lose no time in acting in support of the measures taken by the Italian Government and local authorities?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

The Commission expresses its sympathy with the people who were recently hit by floods in many parts of the Community, in particular in Tuscany.

The Commission understands and shares the Honourable Member's concern and supports his wishes. But it must remind him that the Community does not have a disaster fund and that direct aid to European citizens who are victims of disasters has been abolished. Parliament abolished the general heading of the Community budget under which emergency aid was provided in the Community.

With regard to restoring the production capacity of the affected areas, the Community could provide financial assistance to priority zones through the Structural Funds. Since the districts referred to by the Honourable Member are not within the priority areas, they only receive sectoral assistance (such as aid to agriculture) or horizontal assistance ( such as aid for training and jobs).

Here, purely by way of example, farms which submit investment plans in order to become productive again could, in principle, receive aid from the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Guarantee Section, objective 5A. Conditions of eligibility should be checked with and investment plans vetted by the regional authorities (Department of Agriculture).

With regard to investments in production apart from agriculture and infrastructures, the authorities in question could apply for loans from the European Investment Bank through the usual channels. Some years ago, the Community also created a European investment fund, which provides loan guarantees for small and medium-sized entreprises (SMEs) and for investments in infrastructures.

More generally, recurrent floods in the Community point to a problem in the management of town and country planning which is a matter for the Member States. They are required to take measures to prevent this type of natural disasters.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(10 November 1998)

Subject: European guarantee fund for pensions

Continuing speculation about the future of pensions has prompted a number of Member States to set up a public reserve fund to finance pensions in the medium and long term.

The fund will come into operation if the social security system becomes inadequate, because of the ageing of the population, to cover possible future discrepancies between contributions and benefits.

Does the Commission consider that it should devise a European version of this by creating a common fund for the whole European Union, in an attempt, by analogy with the aforementioned national funds, to avoid any future imbalances which may arise in any Member State by introducing a Community system based on solidarity for the future of all the existing pension schemes in the Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

In the area of social protection, Member States are free to fix their own policies on the organisation and operation of social security schemes, provided they comply with Community law on equal treatment for men and women and on social security for migrant workers.

Consequently, Member States may agree to set up a public reserve fund to finance pensions in the medium and long term, if they so wish. The Commission has no intention of promoting the idea of a common fund of this nature for the whole Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/98

by Michèle Lindeperg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Return of Bosnian refugees

The general peace agreement on Bosnia-Hercegovina, or Dayton Accord, signed in Paris in December 1995 aims to redress the wrong inflicted on refugees driven into exile by mass expulsions during the conflict by guaranteeing their right to return freely to their homes.

In most of the countries that accepted refugees from Bosnia-Hercegovina, the temporary protection or right to stay granted to the latter has been, or soon will be, suspended. The host countries use the existence of the Dayton Accord to justify sending refugees back to regions where people of their nationality are now in the majority, regardless of those refugees' place of origin.

The fact that a peace agreement is in force in a region does not, however, mean that the necessary secure conditions are in place for the return of refugees, or that the rights of minorities are guaranteed. Despite the declared wish of most of these displaced persons to return to their homes, direct violence, administrative hurdles and the impossibility of finding accommodation make their return extremely problematic.The presence of unpunished war criminals in certain regions increases the feeling of insecurity and the apprehension of those returning.

The UNHCR has stated that the decision by refugees to be repatriated or to return to regions of origin where they would now be in the minority should continue to be totally voluntary. Some Member States that regard the presence of Bosnian refugees on their territory as a burden are inclined to ignore this recommendation and speed up their rate of return. In so doing, even those who had opposed the division of Bosnia-Hercegovina on ethnic lines are now reinforcing that division by sending refugees to regions other than their own.

What does the Commission intend to do to stop refugees being returned without their free consent and to persuade the Member States to stop bringing pressure to bear on refugees?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

The Commission is not in a position to interfere with the bilateral politics of the Member States and the decisions taken by them with regard to the return of refugees to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The return projects funded by the Commission are fully in line with the Dayton peace agreement and concentrate on the voluntary return of refugees and displaced people to their place of origin.

1998 was proclaimed the "year of return" by the international community and the Commission launched the 1998 return programme with the main focus on integrated projects favouring the return of minority groups to their place of origin. A total of ECU 114 million was put aside for this action (of which 89 % is already committed, the remaining 11 % will be committed before end of the year). Apart from this support, the Commission has continued in 1998 its action with ECU 40 million for rehabilitation and return.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3207/98

by Livio Filippi (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Closure of Solvay plant in Ferrara

Solvay has decided to close a plant employing 200 workers in Ferrara, prompting justified protests by local trade unions and organizations.

It has become all too frequent for multinational companies to lay off workers or close down plants with no concern for the social effects of their actions.

Will the Commission therefore ascertain whether the company has complied with the obligation to consult its workers laid down in the directive on the European works council and say what steps it plans to take to ensure that the basic rights of workers are respected with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 1998)

The Commission is aware of problems in relation to the closure of a Solvay production plant in Ferrara (Italy).

Article 13 of Council Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European works council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(1) gave the social partners the possibility to conclude a voluntary agreement on the establishment of a European works council in order to fulfil the obligations set out in the Directive. Such an Article 13 agreement exists in the Solvay group, but the Commission has no information for the time being as to whether or not this agreement was fully respected in the context of the closure of the plant in Ferrara. More information is being sought.

It must be emphasised that, in the first instance, the Member States are responsible for the implementation, application and enforcement of Community directives.

(1) OJ L 10, 16.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/98

by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Asylum seekers

Can the Commission say how many asylum seekers there are in each Member State? How many are considered to be "economic refugees" and how many political refugees?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat two tables. Table A shows the number of asylum applications lodged in each Member State each year from 1987 until 1997. Table B shows the number of decisions taken by each Member State over the same period to recognise a person as a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.

It is important to note that asylum decisions frequently relate to applications lodged in previous years. There is not therefore a straightforward correlation between the two tables. It is not possible to draw conclusions about the number of unfounded asylum applications submitted in each Member State on the basis of the information available.

The Commission also notes that many people who are not recognised as refugees within the meaning of the 1951 Convention are nevertheless in need of international protection. In some cases, Member States will have obligations under other human rights instruments such as the 1950 European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms or the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other cases, there may be humanitarian reasons for not returning the person concerned to the country of origin. A number of Member States grant what is often referred to as a de facto or "B status" to such people. Common minimum standards for forms of protection complementary to refugee status have not yet been adopted at the level of the Union, but Article 73k(2)(a) of the Treaty of Amsterdam will require the Council to adopt measures in this area within five years of the new treaty's entry into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/98

by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Measures in favour of the family and children

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Commission in Case C-106/96 (12 May 1998), what action is the Commission taking, or does it propose to take, to ensure the implementation of the projects to be funded from Item B3-4108: Measures in favour of the family and children?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

The Commission has decided to release part of the appropriations for item B3-4108 - Measures in favour of the family and children - for 1998. Commitments totalling ECU 810 000 have been entered into to date. Other projects totalling ECU 2,19 million could still be financed in the context of the production of a report on population and of the execution of projects accepted by the Commission before 10 June 1998, for which certain expectations have been created.

The possibility of financing these measures in future will be reviewed in the context of the interinstitutional agreement on the legal bases and amendments introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Teaching of Spanish in Brazil

The Brazilian Government's recent decision to make the teaching of Spanish compulsory in Brazilian schools immediately highlighted the difficulty of implementing the measures owing to the shortage of Spanish teachers in Brazil.

Since, in order to continue the process of integrating the South-American economies, all Brazilian citizens must have the opportunity of learning Spanish during their school career, the question of how the European Union could help overcome the shortage of Spanish teachers needs to be given consideration.

Will the Commission say whether, as a way of supporting the process of economic integration in South American through MERCOSUR and similar agreements, it agrees that it should propose a programme to encourage Spanish teachers in the Community to teach Spanish in Brazil in order to overcome the shortage of teachers?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 1998)

The Brazilian Government's very recent decision to step up the learning and use of Spanish by making teaching of the language compulsory, raises questions about how this is going to be achieved.

It is clearly too soon to say, even in Brazil itself, how and when the process is going to get under way and hence all the more so whether external aid will be necessary.

In any case, but in no way ruling out the Honourable Member's proposal, the beneficiary country must first come forward to request cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3037/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Television without frontiers

The qualifying match for the European Championship between Denmark and Belarus in Belarus was shown only on TV3 since the other channels DR and TV2 were unwilling to pay the high cost. This meant that only 60 % of viewers were able to see the match. This is not in conformity with the Council directive stipulating that some national sporting events must not be shown only on channels available to a small section of the population. Is there a loophole in the directive?

How does the directive affect the cost of television rights?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552/EEC (the "Television without frontiers" Directive)(1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC(2), allows - but does not require - Member States to take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that a substantial proportion of the public is not deprived of the possibility of following events of major importance for society via live or deferred coverage on free television.

Any measures taken by the Member States must strike a balance between the legitimate general interest recognised by Article 3a(1), on the one hand, and competition between free channels and pay channels and the freedom to supply cross-border services on the other.

In general, the Commission believes that offering free channels the rights to televise events considered to be of major importance for society at market prices may be regarded as a solution that is in the spirit of the Directive, which does not specify any mechanism for fixing the price of rights.

In accordance with Article 3a(2) of the Directive, the Danish authorities have notified the Commission of a draft ministerial decree laying down rules for televising events of major importance for the Danish public. The Commission is currently examining these measures to ensure that they are compatible with Community law.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.