ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Failure to clarify conditions applicable to cabotage

Is the Commission aware that since the introduction of limited cabotage, an inventory of the conditions subject to which cabotage may be authorised has been made only once?

Does the Commission further realise that new countries have since acceded to the Union and that no general review of the relevant conditions has ever been provided for those countries?

Has Commission any plans to draw up and publish a comprehensive review outlining the relevant conditions? If so, when? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State(1) states that (save as provided in Community regulations) regulations and administrative provisions in force in the "host" Member State apply in five areas that are enumerated in the Regulation. These five areas are rates and conditions governing the transport contract, weights and dimensions of road vehicles, requirements relating to the carriage of certain categories of goods, driving and rest time, and value added tax (VAT) on transport services.

The Commission is aware that a number of national organisations produce, for their own members, extensive inventories of national rules in other countries. For example, an inventory produced by Transport en Logistiek Nederland covers 49 countries in its 1998 edition.

It would not be appropriate for the Commission to create and update a manual of the national legislation applicable in all these areas, but it may be useful for an international organisation of road hauliers to coordinate such work so as to avoid duplication.

(1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Research into the use of asbestos

The Commission has carried out a study on the technical and economic consequences of the use of alternative materials [to asbestos]. What were the results of this investigation? Do they cast any additional light on the use of asbestos and its alternative materials? When can we expect a proposal for a directive banning the use of asbestos?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

The study mentioned by the Honourable Member "The implications of replacing asbestos cement products and the availability of alternatives" was carried out by a consultant (Environmental Resources Management or ERM) at the request of the Commission.

The Commission asked ERM to assess the economic and socio-economic implications of a possible Community wide ban on asbestos cement products (ERM were asked to concentrate on the impact in Greece, Spain and Portugal, the three Member States most likely to be effected by a ban because they still have significant asbestos-cement industries) and to identify all present day applications of chrysotile asbestos and assess whether there are alternatives for each of these applications which are safer and which offer adequate performance.

The conclusions of both parts of the study will form an important input into the Commission's forthcoming proposal for a directive to ban chrysotile asbestos. In particular the study will enable the Commission and Member States to consider appropriate exceptions to a ban and the effect of temporary derogations.

ERM have produced a draft final report for the Commission, but this has not yet been made available publicly to the Member States or other interested parties because there are still some information gaps and final editing to be completed. However, the results of the study will be available shortly and will be sent to Member States within the next few months.

In addition to this work on the economic implications of a ban, the Commission has also sought the scientific advice of the independent scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (SCTEE) on the relative health risks posed by chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes. The opinion of the SCTEE is also expected within the next few months.

The draft directive will be presented to Member States as soon as these two elements have been finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3079/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Selection procedure

Following requests by Mr Caccavale, Member of the European Parliament, and at the suggestion of Mr Liikanen, the EU Commissioner responsible for staff matters, the Commission has decided to halt the competition begun on 14 September. Approximately 30 000 candidates in 38 EU centres took this competition. The first test in the competition was annulled on the ground of numerous irregularities which have already been acknowledged by Commissioner Liikanen.

Some of the candidates who sat this competition have incurred heavy expenditure because, for the first time, the Commission has not reimbursed candidates' travelling and lodging expenses.

Can the Commission say whether candidates will be reimbursed for these expenses when they resit the test?

What specific action will the Commission take to ensure that such irregularities cannot recur in the future?

What measures will the Commission take to prevent candidates proved to have cheated from taking part in any further competitions?

According to the Commission the cost of the annulled competition amounted to approximately ECU 1,2 million. Can the Commission also state who in its administration bears the responsibility for this affair and how the additional costs are being funded?

Will there be any consequences for staff in the wake of these incidents, and can the Commission say in general what steps are now being taken to improve its negative image over staff matters as the result of this affair?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2547/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Shipments of nuclear waste

1. The Commission set out the guidelines for the disposal of radioactive matter and fuel elements in a communication in 1994. It proposed harmonising the definition and categories of radioactive waste, establishing common strategies for reprocessing, reducing the volume and the transport of radioactive waste and drawing up plans to improve safety of disposal, in particular storage. Does the revelation that limit values have been exceeded for nuclear waste shipments from the Federal Republic and Switzerland to France mean that there is now a need for the Commission to take action?

2. The transport rules for maximum exposure are based on IAEA recommendations currently in force. For non-fixed contamination on the surface of containers and vehicles the rules provide the following limit values: 4 Bq/cm2 for beta and gamma emitters and 0,4 Bq/cm2 for alpha emitters. The limit values are precautionary measures laid down for the protection of persons handling shipments.

3. Does the Commission regard exceeding by up to 5000 times the limit values for the shipment of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuels pursuant to the IAEA rules as unacceptable, and what conclusions does it draw?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2446/98

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

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Activities of the Chiquita multinational in Latin America

Recent information published in various sectors of the media reveals a number of facts concerning the influence of the Chiquita multinational on US trade policy.

For example, at the recent FAO conference on bananas held in Rome in May 1998, the US delegation was accompanied by four "advisers", all of whom held senior posts in the Chiquita company (which was not the case for other banana multinationals).

The information also focuses on a number of facts which should be investigated, such as:

- the acquisition of land in Latin American countries by the multinational company, even in breach of legislation in those countries;

- cases of bribery in Colombia;

- significant financial contributions to political leaders heading the dispute within the WTO concerning the trade arrangements for bananas in the European Union.

Is the Commission aware of the degree of influence exerted by this multinational on EU policy with regard to international trade in bananas?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate the reports in order to bring to light the multinational's practices in Latin American countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of Chiquita's importance as a multinational company trading in bananas. Its representatives are consulted along with those of other companies trading in bananas and also producers within the framework of the consultative committee known as the banana expert group. The full composition of that group includes representatives of producers from the Community, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) and Latin American countries, importers, distributors and consumers. However it is clear that the role of this committee is purely consultative. Decision-making remains the responsibility of the relevant Community institutions.

It does not fall within Commission jurisdiction to investigate Chiquita's practices in Latin American countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/98

by Roberto Mezzaroma (PPE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Russian submarines

Is the Commission aware - as I have been informed - that many nuclear-powered submarines are moored in Russian fiords close to other countries' frontiers, and that they receive little or no maintenance, although their nuclear reactors are still active?

- if so, which directorates-general are dealing with the problem?

- what action has been taken by the European Union on this issue?

- what is the attitude of the countries concerned?

- what are the real dangers?

- and, finally, which officials are dealing with the problem?

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

(13 November 1998)

The Commission is perfectly aware that spent nuclear fuel from submarines and from icebreakers represents a high risk to the environment in the Russion Federation and neighbouring countries. This problem is of particular importance in the North-West of the country.

The Commission attaches great importance to the issue of nuclear safety in the Russian Federation. The Community is the largest contributor to technical assistance in the field of nuclear safety in Russia. Of the ECU 470 million of bilateral assistance committed since 1992, the Community has contributed close to ECU 300 million (63 %).

The Commission is already supporting a range of projects addressing the issue of radioactive waste management and fuel including undertaking an inventory of all the radioactive waste and spent fuel in North-West Russia, an international project to remove spent nuclear fuel from the ship "Lepse" which is used to store spent fuel, the development of casks (containers) for the spent fuel, and providing technical assistance in the management of spent fuel (storage, transport, disposal).

The Commission, along with Norway and the United States, has signaled willingness to participate in a broader concerted international effort to address this issue, providing the Russian Federation removes the obstacles concerning nuclear liability, customs and tax issues in the implementation of the projects and grants access to sites and data, as appropriate.

Up to now, the Russian Federation has not removed these obstacles. The Commission uses all the mechanisms and bilateral meetings to insist on the urgency of the question. Regular meetings of involved countries and the Russian Federation take place in the framework of the contact expert group, created under International atomic energy agency auspices. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in November 1998 in Murmansk.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: The execution by hanging of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani in Iran

Is the Commission aware that Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani was hanged on 21 July in Mashad in Iran on the grounds of having converted a young woman to the Bahá'i religion?

Is the Commission aware that this charge has been refuted by the young woman herself, who has apparently stated that her mother was a Bahá'i and that she herself was raised as a Bahá'i, and is the Commission aware that the young woman herself has not been detained?

Is the Commission aware that Mr Rawhani was denied all visits after his detention, that he was refused legal assistance and that all the indications are that he did not have a proper trial and that no sentence was formally pronounced against him?

Is the Commission aware that no Bahá'is have been executed since 1992 and that there are a further 15 Bahá'is in prison, four of whom have also been sentenced to death?

Will the Commission ask the Iranian government for clarification of the execution of Mr Rawhani and of the fate of the 15 other Bahá'is in prison?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

The Commission regrets the execution of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani in Mashad, Iran, on 21 July 1998. A Troika demarche to the Iranian government in Teheran was made on this matter on 5 August 1998.

The Commission has no delegation in Teheran and has no first-hand information on the circumstances surrounding the trial and sentence of Mr Rawhani. The Iranian authorities maintain that he was provided with legal assistance throughout his trial and that he was not sentenced to death because of his religious beliefs since, although not recognised as a religious minority, Baha'i members are free to practise Bahai'sm as long as their activities do not endanger Iran's national security. The Iranian authorities also maintain that Mr Rawhani was judged and condemned previously in 1984 and 1985 for crimes against state security.

The Commission is aware that three other members of Iran's Baha'i community (Mr Ataullah Hamid Nasirizadih, Mr Sirus Dhabihi Muqaddam, and Mr Hidayat Kashifi Najafabadi) are imprisoned and also face the death sentence. The Commission, in coordination with Member States, is very concerned by these cases and will continue to keep the human rights situation in Iran under close and careful review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3056/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Breakaway super soccer league

Is the Commission aware of the proposed establishment of a breakaway super league involving Europe's leading football teams? Will the Commission monitor this situation, particularly to ensure that the broadcasting of any games arising out of such a development are not exclusively in the hands of "pay-to-view" television companies?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 1998)

The Commission is aware of the proposed establishment of a new European football league involving a significant number of European football clubs.

The Commission has not received so far any request for clearance, application for an exemption, nor complaint in relation to this project. If one or the other were received, or if it is considered appropriate to act ex officio, the Commission would in the course of its assessment of the case consider what consumer benefits will accrue from the new league. This assessment would include an examination of the league's policy towards the broadcasting of matches, whether on free-to air-television, pay television or pay-per-view television.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in Southport

Can the Commission confirm that it has instituted a pre-Article 169 investigation into the proposed strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in order to ascertain whether it constitutes an upgrading of the road without the environmental assessment required under the Habitats Directive to ensure that there is no negative impact on the Sefton Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation?

Has there been a response to this investigation from the relevant UK authorities?

If not, would the Commission agree to press for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible in view of the projected start of the works in September 1998?

Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable either to stop the works before then if they are illegal or, if they are not illegal, to ensure that they can go ahead without fear of subsequent legal action?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the allegations about presumed breaches by the British authorities of certain provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1), in connection with the Sefton coast road bridges development.

The Commission is currently considering this matter and has contacted the British authorities. The Commission is awaiting the United Kingdom's response.

In connection with the third question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken under it are properly applied by Member States. When the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty, it may take action under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. However, the Commission does not have powers to grant interim relief to stop projects in Member States.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3054/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Manchester United

What action will the Commission take to ensure that the proposed acquisition of Manchester United by BSkyB does not conflict with EU competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

BSkyB's proposed acquisition of Manchester United Football Club falls outside the scope of Community merger control legislation (Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997(2)) as it does not constitute a concentration with a Community dimension. In particular, the proposed acquisition does not meet the turnover threshold tests set out in Article 1 of the Regulation.

In principle, therefore, national competition law and procedures apply to this proposed acquisition, which will be examined by the British authorities.

(1) OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

(2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1592/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Collapse of Tauras Bankas

I am informed that EU funds were lost in the collapse of the Lithuanian bank Tauras Bankas in 1995-97.

1. How much EU money was deposited in this bank? How much EU money was it possible to reclaim? What amount is likely to be irrecoverable?

2. Why was this bank chosen as an EU banking link? Who was responsible for this decision? What consequences will the Commission draw as a result of this affair? What procedure is used to select banks for EU links?

3. Has the Commission selected other banks for EU banking links which later experienced economic difficulties? If so, which were these, and what losses were suffered?

4. Are banks which are selected as possible EU banking links subjected to any special monitoring? If so, what form does it take? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

The Commission did not select Tauras bank as a correspondent bank and did not deposit any Community funds at that bank. As a consequence, no Community funds will be lost as a result of Tauras bankruptcy proceedings.

The Honourable Member may be referring to the use of the proceeds of the Community macro-financial assistance granted to Lithuania by the Community in November 1992. A detailed analysis of the implementation of this operation is provided in the report on macro-financial assistance to third countries presented by the Commission to the Parliament every year(1).

The macro-financial assistance granted to Lithuania within the framework of the country's arrangement with the International monetary fund (IMF) took the form of a Community loan to the Bank of Lithuania. This constitutes a sovereign lending operation guaranteed by the Republic of Lithuania.

Owing to particular circumstances at the time of the implementation of this assistance, the Lithuanian authorities were allowed to on-lend part of the funds through a selected number of local banks. These on-lending operations are financial transactions between Lithuanian entities and all the risk incurred by on-lending rests with the Lithuanian state. It is in this context, that, on 29 August 1995, the Lithuanian authorities decided to lend Tauras Bank ECU 17 million. However, these on-lending operations have no bearing on the Community claims towards Lithuania. The Community loans to Lithuania have so far been serviced scrupulously and the Commission does not expect any future debt servicing difficulty.

(1) COM(98) 3 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2971/98

by Franz Linser (NI) to the Council

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Financing and implementing the Brenner tunnel project

The President of the Transport Council, Dr Einem, stressed at a meeting of Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism on 1 September 1998 that there was no need for the construction of the Brenner tunnel.

1. What are the Council's reason for this position?

2. How does the Council envisage the future financing of this project?

3. (a) What progress has been achieved with the project in respect of the approach roads on Italian territory?

(b) Has there been any planning activity in Italy?

(c) If so, have any geological surveys or test drills etc. been carried out?

(d) If not, when is the planning work likely to start?

4. (a) What progress has been achieved with the project in respect of the approach roads on German territory?

(b) Has there been any planning activity in Germany?

(c) If so, have any geological surveys or test drills etc. been carried out?

(d) If not, when is the planning work likely to start?

Reply

(7 December 1998)

The project entitled "High speed train/combined transport North-South, Nüremberg - Erfurt - Halle/Leipzig - Berlin, Brenner axis: Verona - Munich" is among the projects listed in Decision No 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1) to which the Essen European Council attached particular importance. Monitoring implementation of the trans-European network and of these projects is a matter for the Commission.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.