ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0055/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Brothels in Greece and the rest of the EU

In order to run a brothel in Greece a permit is needed (this has so far been issued by the police, but a bill is currently before the Greek Parliament proposing that this permit should be issued by the municipal authorities), while prostitutes must register with the police, take out an identity booklet and undergo a medical examination and give blood samples twice a week.

The above arrangements apply to Greek prostitutes, but not to the thousands of other prostitutes from third countries who have come to Greece and are working illegally in brothels.

Will the Commission give a precise account of the conditions governing the running of brothels and the obligations for prostitutes in the other EU countries?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

The Commission is active against the trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation. It has in particular prepared a communication to the Council and to the Parliament in November 1996 ((COM(96) 567. )) in order to promote a coherent European approach to this issue and is managing an exchange and training programme for those responsible for combating trade in human beings (STOP programme set up by joint action of 29 November 1996 adopted by the Council). However it is up to each Member State to decide on the rules concerning prostitution and the Community has thus no competence in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0736/98 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Application for Cohesion Fund resources for a project for cleaning up the catchment area of the rivers Lis and Seiça (Portugal)

On 6 January 1998 the Commission replied to my Question P-3932/97 ((OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 94. )) on the catchment area of the rivers Lis and Seiça (Portugal)/Cohesion Fund, stating that it had received an application for cofunding the first phase of a cleaning up project and would consider this application on the basis of the technical and economic assessment of the project, the resources available under the Cohesion Fund for Portugal and the priorities fixed by the Commission and the Member State concerned.

Will the Commission say what progress has been made in assessing this application and establishing priorities and whether any decision has yet been made?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

The application for part-financing from the Cohesion Fund for the project for cleaning up the catchment area of the Rivers Lis and Seiça is still being examined. However, the amount requested greatly exceeds that available from the Cohesion Fund for Portugal until 1999. A final decision on the project will therefore have to await the drawing up of priorities for the Cohesion Fund in agreement with the Portuguese authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/98 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Destruction of the archaeological site of Vouthrotou

According to UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, the archaeological site of Vouthrotou in southern Albania is one of the most important world heritage sites which is threatened with destruction. In particular, the archaeological site of Vouthrotou in the Examiliou peninsula, south of Aghia Saranda, is directly threatened because of pillaging in the region and the museum during the recent disturbances.

Does the Commission intend to support the Albanian State and the archaeological services of the town of Ioannina (Epirus, Greece) to save the archaeological site of Vouthrotou and other Byzantine monuments and archaeologic treasures which are under direct threat in southern Albania?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies given on the same subject in oral question H-350/97 by Mr Alexandros Alavanos during question time at Parliament's May I 1997 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (May I 1997). )) and Written Question E-1439/97 by Mrs Katerina Daskalaki ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0253/98 by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Obligation to accept two currencies for the same transaction

1. Is there a statutory obligation for businesses to accept two different currencies (the old national currency and the euro) for the same transaction in the period between 1 January and 1 July 2002? If so, in what legislative act is this obligation laid down?

2. Would it not be more acceptable to drop this obligation to accept two different currencies if there were a large number of exchange points for the old national currency in commercial banks, for example?

3. Will the Commission make any recommendations on this matter?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

The obligation for businesses to accept a payment is a question about legal tender, which is a privilege of banknotes and, with some restrictions, of coins. Today in all Member States no one can be forced to accept a payment by cheque or electronic means, even in the national currency. This will remain the case with the euro.

Euro notes and coins will be introduced in all participating Member States on 1 January 2002. According to article 10 and 11 of the draft regulation on the introduction of the euro ((OJ C 369, 7.12.1996. )), these euro notes and coins will be legal tender in all participating Member States and therefore must in principle be accepted by retailers for payment.

According to article 15 of the draft Council regulation, banknotes and coins denominated in national currency units retain their legal tender status for up to six months after the end of the transitional period, i.e. until 30 June 2002 at the latest. This period may be shortened by national law. In fact Member States are free to reduce the period of dual legal tender to nil. Moreover, a Member State may between 1 January and 1 July 2002, lay down rules for the use of the banknotes and coins denominated in its national currency unit and take any measures necessary to facilitate their withdrawal. During this six month period, it will therefore in the first instance depend on national provisions which notes and coins retailers will be obliged to accept for payments.

Since December 1995, when the European Council decided on the reference scenario for the introduction of the euro, most Member States have indeed indicated that they will have a period of dual circulation substantially shorter than six months, helping to reduce the burden on retailers, and avoiding confusion for consumers. First rounds of discussions on the optimal length and general organisation of phase C, with the aim of minimising cost and inconvenience, have taken place in all Member States except Denmark.

The Commission has not changed its view that the dual circulation period should be as short as technically possible. It does not at this stage intend to issue a formal recommendation, but will invite Member States to speed up their decision process, in order to give currency users sufficient time to prepare the transition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0163/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Battery hens

Will the Commission set in train some research on the economic effects of phasing out battery egg production on those farms or companies that currently use these methods so that measures can be planned to ensure that they are helped to move to less intensive methods in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to her written question E-115/98 ((See page 33. )). The communication to the Parliament and the Council will indicate the economic effects of the measures proposed, including estimations on the consequences of phasing out the current battery cage systems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/98 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Language use in the Official Journal

Official Journal L 328 of 28 November 1997 contains a list of contracting authorities that are subject to the agreement concerning the award of public service contracts. On page 10, a list relating to Belgium appears only in French.

The Commission is aware of my concern with language use. Can I be informed why the above list appeared only in French? Am I to conclude that Dutch and German speakers are not subject to this procurement legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0207/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against the Greek agricultural trade union confederation SY.DA.SE

Is the Commissioner responsible for agricultural policy aware that the Greek agricultural trade union confederation, the 'Confederation of Democratic Agricultural Cooperatives of Greece' (SY.DA.SE), which, according to reliable sources, represents some 40% of Greek farmers is not represented in the COPA, even though other Greek farmers' confederations, such as PASEGES and the GESASE, are? I am sure that the Commissioner will agree that this situation is contrary to the principles of democracy, pluralism and representation which constitute fundamental principles of the European Union.

In view of the above, will the Commissioner say whether he intends to take action to put an end to this unacceptable situation and ensure that the 40% or so of Greek farmers who are SY.DA.SE members are represented in the COPA?

Does the Commission also intend to take action to ensure that SY.DA.SE representatives sit on the agricultural consultative committees and the Economic and Social Committee?

Finally, will the Commission say which Greek non-governmental organizations have been funded under the EU budget (formerly budget heading 512 and currently B2/5122 during the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, and what level of funding has been provided?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

The Honourable Member should note that the Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Community (COPA) is completely independent of the Commission; it has its own articles of association and its own governing bodies. The Commission cannot therefore comment on the admission of any organisation to COPA, or its refusal to admit an organisation.

The members of the consultative committees are appointed on the basis of a proposal from the European farming organisations, not from the national ones.

The Honourable Member is reminded that the Council appoints the members of the Economic and Social Committee (second paragraph of Article 194 of the EC Treaty), not the Commission.

The Commission however maintains regular contacts with any farming organisations that so wish.

For information, the Honourable Member will find below a breakdown of the grants made since 1994 to Greek non-governmental organisations under budget headings B2-514 and B2-5122:

>TABLE>

For 1998, however, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that Parliament committed 98% of the appropriations to the major European organisations in the commentary on budget heading B2-5122, leaving only ECU 100 000 to fund organisations pursuing aims in problem sectors and in the countries of central and eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0562/98 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Conflict between agriculture and wildlife in Cameroon

The conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural land is undoubtedly the primary ecological problem facing Africa today and it is also the greatest threat to the biodiversity of the continent. Increasing numbers of experts consider that more effective use of natural resources, in particular wildlife, is the only solution to this serious human and ecological problem.

Paradoxically, in Cameroon it would appear that for several years the French Government has subsidized the production of cotton, which has adverse effects on the natural ecosystems (soil degeneration) and on wildlife but is very profitable for the farmers.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? Can it approach the French government so that the long-term social, economic and ecological impacts of these strategies are assessed? Does the Commission not consider that the experiments developed in southern Africa (more effective use of wildlife) could help to provide solutions?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)

Both the Commission and Member States share the concerns the Honourable Member voices over the economic, social and environmental impact of cotton-growing.

The question he raises relates to French bilateral aid and so the Commission would suggest that he ask the French authorities direct what impact cotton farming is having in northern Cameroon.

That aside, the Commission would point out that for the past ten or so years it has been involved in funding major programmes in Cameroon and central Africa more generally. The programmes, designed to encourage rational use of forestry ecosystems, aim to preserve biodiversity and make more effective use of wildlife.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/98 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: The Aguamarga salt-marshes in Alicante

In a written question to the Commission of 3 December 1997, I raised the issue of the major threat to the Aguamarga wetlands in Alicante posed by urban growth, from which these marshes have always suffered.

The Kelme group are currently drawing up plans for building a sports centre, an artificial lake and 500 houses in the Aguamarga marshlands.

The area is included on Valencian Community's Inventory of Wetlands, and in order for the plan to be approved, the General Building Plan would have to be amended and at least a quarter of the sites would have to be reclassified as low-density building land.

Ecological groups and the opposition parties are totally opposed to this project's going ahead, but the party in government is inclined to support it, and the scheme may become a reality.

Given that these salt-marshes are a natural area of major cultural, scientific and recreational value,

1. Can the Commission intervene in order to preserve them in their current state?

2. Can the Commission reconsider the questions I raised in my previous written question on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

This site has not been designated as a special protection area (SPA) for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), nor has it been scientifically classified as an important area for bird conservation.

This site has not been proposed by Spain for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network, pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). Nor is the Commission aware that it contains a priority species or type of natural habitat which, on the basis of relevant and reliable scientific information, would make it essential to the maintenance of this type of priority habitat or to the survival of this priority species. This site thus appears to be of greater natural interest to Spain than to the Community. Consequently, the Commission has no particular reason to intervene in place of the Spanish authorities.

The Commission's position has not changed since it answered the Honourable Member's written question No E-4039/97 ((OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 66. )). In January 1998, Spain sent the Commission the list of sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. The Aguamarga wetland is not included in that list.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0259/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Cot death

1. EPA-USA claims that cot death is linked to contaminated dust particles in the domestic environment. Does the Commission have any information about this or does it plan to support research projects in this area?

2. Has there been an increase in the incidence of cot death in the EU Member States?

3. If so, in which states and regions? Are these primarily industrial sites or rural areas?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

1. The Commission is not aware of any studies linking sudden infant death to dust particles found in the indoor environment of homes. As part of its activities in the field of biomedical and health research the Commission financed a project entitled 'ECAS, European concerted action on sudden infant death', the aim of which was to identify methods of prevention. The final report for the project is being completed at present. In addition, in the Environment and Climate research programme, there is a major research effort underway on air quality ranging from sources and behaviour of pollutants to their impact on human health, including both morbidity and mortality endpoints.

2. and 3. The Commission has no data on the incidence of sudden infant death in Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/98 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Duty-free sales

I note that the Council has been able to answer Question No E-2666/97 ((OJ C 102, 3.4.1998, p. 85. )) no more than very superficially and therefore put these questions once again.

The Council has decided that duty-free sales should cease in 1999. The stated reason is that duty-free sales are not logically compatible with the internal market.

What is the purpose of this decision?

Could this purpose be achieved by less drastic means?

If so, what measures might be considered sufficient? If not, why not?

How do duty-free sales hamper the proper functioning of the internal market?

What was the basis for the Council's decision?

How many jobs in the EU are affected by this Council decision?

What was the Council's assessment of the decision's impact on employment?

What is the Council's present assessment of the decision's impact on employment?

How can the Council justify the destruction of thousands of jobs on purely ideological grounds?

Will the Council create replacement jobs for the people who have been deprived of them by this ideologically motivated decision?

If so, when and where will these jobs be created?

How will the creation of these jobs be funded?

If not, how can such decisions be reconciled with the numerous statements by all manner of Councils that they will do everything in their power to create jobs?

Answer (18 May 1998)

The Council has nothing to add to the reply given to Written Question No E-2666/97 by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 414/98 by John CUSHNAHAN to the Council. Beef blockade



Official Journal C 304 , 02/10/1998 P. 0097



WRITTEN QUESTION P-0414/98 by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Council (17 February 1998) Subject: Beef blockade Further to my previous Question (H-1020/97) ((Debates of the European Parliament (January 1998). )) and the subsequent Council response I would formally request the Council in the interest of transparency to actually answer the question that I tabled which was: 'on what date was this request made?' Answer (8 June 1998) At the meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture on 8 and 9 December 1997, Ireland had asked if it could take up at ministerial level the issue of trade being obstructed in English ports. As already indicated in the oral reply to which the Honourable Member refers, this issue was accordingly examined by the Council at its meeting on 15 and 16 December 1997. The Commission acknowledged at that meeting that the United Kingdom was taking the necessary measures so that products could move freely without hinderance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0264/98 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: The systematic and provocative policy of increasing tension pursued by the Turkish Government

The policy of systematically increasing tension pursued by the Turkish Government in relation to Greece is jeopardizing the peace in a vital part of the European Union. For the second time over the last few months Turkish planes have attempted to buzz a plane carrying the Greek Foreign Minister. Within Turkey this policy by Ankara is encouraging extremist criminal elements which two days ago burned down an Orthodox church in Istanbul and murdered the sacristan.

Does the Commission intend:

1. to make it clear to the relevant Turkish authorities that this behaviour sets an even greater distance between Turkey and the European Union and makes it impossible to include it among the countries which will be attending the European Conference?

2. to take measures to protect Orthodox churches in Turkey and the rights of citizens to freedom of expression in religious matters?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

In its contacts with the Turkish authorities the Commission underscores the importance of improving relations between Greece and Turkey as part of ongoing relations between the Community and Turkey. It subscribes fully to the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council of December 1997 according to which strengthened links between Turkey and the Community hinge on respect for and protection of minorities and on the establishment of satisfactory and stable relations between Greece and Turkey. Despite Ankara's recent decision to suspend political dialogue with the Community, the Commission will continue to intimate the Community's concerns to its Turkish opposite numbers.

The Commission deplores the serious incident affecting the Greek orthodox church of St Therapontos in Istanbul in January. An investigation has been started by the Turkish authorities. It would appear that a criminal act took place involving the theft of valuable objects.

As regards the attack in December 1997 on the orthodox patriarch of Istanbul and the security measures taken as a result, the Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to written question E-4004/97 by Mr Kaklamanis ((OJ C 197, 22.6.1998, p. 53. )).