ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Export refund limits

The current proposals to limit export refunds in each budget year will ultimately adversely affect companies' cashflow by forcing them to buy a Refund Certificate which will cost 25 % of the estimated refund.

Will the European Union pay exporters interest on the monies held on security?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Refund certificates were introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/1999 of 23 July 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1223/94 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of advance-fixing certificates for certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex II to the EC Treaty(1) to ensure that the request of the Community's international obligations under the World trade organisation (WTO) with regard to products outside Annex I (ex Annex II) EC Treaty.

Among other things, this regulation stipulates that the applicant for a refund certificate must provide security to ensure that the refunds for which he has applied are equal to the amount of export refunds for which the certificate was issued, and that the exports in question were effected while the certificate was valid. Applications for certificates are therefore only valid if a security is given for an amount equivalent to 25 % of the amount written on the certificate.

Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products(2) states that a security can be given in the form of a cash deposit or in some other form. Article 15 stipulates that in the case of a cash deposit, no interest shall be paid. This stipulation has been in force since 1985. It should be emphasised that a cash deposit is only one of several ways in which a security can be given, and that a cash deposit is of course released as soon as the applicant can show compliance with the conditions listed in the previous paragraph.

Moreover, companies with total applications for export refunds of less than 20 000 in a given year may export goods without possession of a refund certificate, as long as the budget allowed for this facility has not been exhausted.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.1999.

(2) OJ L 205, 3.8.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/99

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: Council Directives 86/469 and 96/23 on the monitoring of certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products

Council Directive 86/469(1), amended by Council Directive 96/23(2), requires that all Member States submit an annual report on large scale, random sampling for certain substance and residues thereof in live animals and animal products.

Has the Commission received these annual reports from all Member States? If not, what steps is the Commission taking to enforce this Directive?

Does the Commission have plans to make these results available to the European Parliament and therefore the public? If so, when? If not, why has the Commission taken this decision?

(1) OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36.

(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

With regard to the annual reports on large scale, random sampling for certain substance and residues thereof in live animals and animal products required by Council Directive 86/469 as amended by Council Directive 96/23(1), the Commission has received the summary results from all Member States, and the detailed reports from all Member States except France. Since April, France has been officially requested by the Commission in the standing veterinary committee to send detailed reports as soon as possible.

The Commission together with Member States' experts started to analyse the reports on 6/7 December 1999 in order to provide a comprehensive report which will be available to the Parliament and therefore the public next year.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/99

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: National interpretation of Article 86 of the EC Treaty

Article 86 meets the criteria for interpretation pursuant to Article 81 (national interpretation) as regards public undertakings and undertakings that are granted special or exclusive rights. This point is dealt with inter alia in the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty(1). If Article 86 is watered down (for instance by introducing an extended rule-of-reason principle), Member States would then be able to provide indirect support for publicly owned undertakings at the expense of their competitors.

Does the Commission take the view that the principles referred to above must also be applied in full to Article 86 and, if so, what criteria must be used to decide whether the Commission, rather than a national authority, is to examine and interpret a point of law?

(1) OJ C 132, 12.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

In the Commission's 1997 notice on cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission in handling cases falling within the scope of Article 85 or 86 of the EC Treaty,(1) cases involving the application of Article 86 (formerly Article 90) of the EC Treaty are identified as being of particular significance to the Community (point 36). The notice states that such cases will more often than not have to be dealt with by the Commission.

The White Paper does not alter the position in any way. In proposing that national authorities and courts should be empowered to apply Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty in its entirety, it does not

prejudge the allocation between the Commission and national competition authorities of cases involving the application of Article 86. In a legal exception system like the current one, the Commission is in principle better placed than national competition authorities to deal with such cases. As to national courts, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice they have jurisdiction to apply Article 86.

(1) OJ C 313, 15.10.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2109/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What discussions have been held with Eurocontrol about Air Traffic Control problems and delays? What is the nature of those discussions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2567/99

by LORD Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)

Does the Commission support the introduction of DAB across the Community and what steps is it taking actively to promote it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2000)

The Commission welcomes the development of digital radio services on appropriate platforms in view of the important role that radio plays in the Community in social, cultural and economic terms and taking into account the current and potential advantages of digital transmissions. The Commission is therefore following digital radio developments very closely, including DAB(1), and has regular contacts with the parties involved in this process.

However the Commission considers that regulatory intervention in the area of electronic communications should comply with a number of principles, and in particular the principle of technological neutrality (see: Towards a new framework for electronic communications infrastructure and associated services The 1999 communications review(2)). Technological neutrality is particularly important because any kind of service can increasingly be delivered by any network or platform as technologies converge. Radio services are also being delivered via digital television platforms and the Internet; and new technologies such as Universal mobile telecommunications systems (UMTS) are being considered. Promoting any particular technology therefore carries a high risk of market distortion.

Consequently, the Commission is not actively promoting the introduction of any particular digital radio system across the Community.

(1) i.e the system developed by Project No 147 of the Eureka Programme. The main elements of this system have been standardised by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) through norms EN 300 797; EN 300 798 and EN 300 799 notably.

(2) COM(1999) 539 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Commissioners' interests

The Commission's website lists the declared interests of the last Commission.

When will the updated list be published in readily-accessible form?

Will all Commissioners contribute fully?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2000)

All the Members of the new Commission, including Mr Prodi, have made public declarations of their financial and other interests. All this information, including details of the professional activities and any assets of the Members' spouses which could create a conflict of interest, has been available on the Internet since 27 August 1999 at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/interests/index_en.htm).

These declarations have also been widely reported in the press.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Nuclear reactors in the applicant countries

1. What is the Commission's position with regard to nuclear reactors in the applicant countries?

2. Does the Commission intend that the reactors should be shut down ahead of schedule and if so, what is its timetable for this?

3. Does the Commission agree with the closure plans for reactors contained, in particular, in the national energy plans of Lithuania and Slovakia?

4. Can the Commission say whether and when nuclear reactors in Lithuania are due to be inspected?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

1. The Commission has always accorded particular attention to nuclear safety in the context of enlargement. This area will be subject to continued scrutiny and supportive action by the Commission in the pre-accession period. The Commission has entered into close co-operation with the safety authorities of the candidate countries in order to strengthen their resources and their independence and thereby to further extend the nuclear safety culture which has developed within the Community.

2. The Commission's policy on these issues is clearly outlined in Agenda 2000 of July 1997, where the reactors of the nuclear power plants in the candidate countries are divided into three categories: reactors of Western design, Soviet-designed plants which can be upgraded to meet international safety standards, and Soviet-designed units which can not be upgraded at a reasonable cost. The Commission has repeatedly stated that the third category nuclear power plants operating in candidate countries should be closed at earliest practical dates, in the framework of a comprehensive energy strategy. This applies to Bohunice V-1 in Slovakia and to the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) in Lithuania, as well as to units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP in Bulgaria.

3. The Commission has had intense and fruitful discussions on this issue with the authorities of the candidate countries. In the second regular reports on progress of candidates toward accession of 13 October 1999, the Commission welcomed the decisions of the Lithuanian and Slovak authorities on early closure of the Ignalina and Bohunice V-1 reactors. The Commission also welcomes the recent understanding with Bulgaria with regard to early closure of Kozloduy 1-4. The Commission regards these decisions as an expression of the countries' commitment to integration and as an important contribution to nuclear safety in Europe. The Commission will certainly continue the dialogue on this issue with the authorities concerned.

4. The Lithuanian safety authority ensures on a regular basis that the operator of the nuclear reactors implements the safety provisions of the safety improvement programme. Granting of operation permits is conditional on the results of these safety revisions, the safety evaluation reports. The Commission supports the Lithuanian safety authority and its work with resources from the PHARE programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/99

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Grant funding

What is the total cost of auditing all EU grant funding (Structural Funds and direct funding projects), including:

- internal audit costs, and

- costs incurred by outside contractors employed to audit EU funds?

I understand that, where funds have been obtained fraudulently or have been known to be misused, the European Commission reclaims them.

What percentage of total grant funding does the European Commission identify as misapplied and require to be reimbursed?

Is there a timeframe within which fund recipients must reimburse misused and/or wrongly allocated money?

What is the average percentage never recovered and/or written off?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2000)

The accounting for the Commission's administrative expenditure is organised by the nature of the expenditure and not by fund, policy objective, or type of administrative cost. Thus, the total cost of auditing all Community grant funding is not known precisely. The

audit of expenditure by the managing directorates general is organised by those directorates general and may even be funded from part B of the budget. No consolidation procedure is currently undertaken, which could give an indication of the total cost of the auditing activity. The introduction of activity based Management (ABM) which has been agreed by the Commission in November 1999, should enable the Commission to provide this type of information in due course.

If funds are identified as incorrectly applied, the Commission undertakes the procedure of debt recovery as provided by articles 28 and 29 of the Financial Regulation(1). The competent authorising officers establish recovery orders, which are sent to the Financial controller for approval and registered by the accounting officer. The latter is in charge of issuing the debit note and exercises all due diligence to ensure that the amounts due to the Commission are recovered. He initiates the recovery procedure, if the amounts are not paid by the due date.

As the main purpose of the reporting system is the efficient recovery of individual debts, no general percentages of recovery on grant funding can be given at this stage. The further development of reporting within the Sincom2 accounting system should enable the Commission to establish more general statistics of this type in the future.

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/99

by Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Retired widow Mrs Maria Luisa Bolzoni 16-year wait for pension

Is the Commission aware of the fact that in a number of Member States there are very serious delays in the payment of old-age pensions?

Does the Commission intend to approach the INPS, which is responsible for paying pensions in Italy, in order to ensure that Mrs Maria Luisa Bolzoni, born on 3 November 1928 in Scandolara Ravara and resident in Bergamo, at 15 via Bonomelli, is at last paid the pension increase requested on 26 November 1994 in accordance with Article 6 of Law No 638/1983 and due to her, under Italian law, from 1 October 1983, not least because she has been waiting patiently for 16 years to be paid the pension increase to which she is entitled as a category SO-96000064 widow?

Can the Commission say how many more years this seventy-one year old Italian pensioner will have to wait?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission has no say in the matter raised by the Honourable Member, as it is a purely internal matter which is outside Community jurisdiction.

With regard to social welfare, the only binding Community provisions are the Regulations on social security for migrant workers and the Directives on equal treatment for men and women in social security schemes.

The organisation and operation of a scheme, eligibility for an old-age or retirement pension and the question of when the various benefits are to be awarded are matters which fall within the exclusive competence of the national authorities, provided that the above Community provisions are observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/99

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Commission staff recruitment

There has been a vacant post for an A5 official at the Commission's office in Athens for the past six months. Although there has been a large number of applications more than twenty no-one has been appointed.

Have all the applicants been deemed unsuitable for a simple A5 post?

Is something else going on, unbeknown to mere mortals?

Why does the Commission persist in not filling the advertised post?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

A grade A post for the Commission Office in Athens has been published. Publication was in abeyance pending completion of the restructuring of the Press and Communication Service, to which the Offices in the Member States have reported since 1 October 1999. Since the restructuring is progressing steadily, the post will be published again shortly and filled as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Import of steel of dubious quality for use in reinforced concrete

The earthquakes which have occurred in Greece and Turkey have caused increased concern regarding the quality of steel used in reinforced concrete. It is an open secret that imported steel on the Greek market is in many cases of lower quality than that indicated. It is alleged that the checks carried out are either inadequate or, if they do reveal that the steel is of inferior quality, it is still allowed to enter the European market with a higher quality designation (for example steel ribs), facilitating its use as a product of higher quality than that actually ascertained, in the absence of preventive checks (market regulation).

1. What steps will the Commission take, in cooperation with the Member States, to step up monitoring procedures?

2. When will uniform quality standards be introduced for steel in reinforced concrete, together with uniform monitoring procedures based on these standards?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

When considering imports of steel products from non-member countries where manufacturing standards may be different from those used in the Community, we need to distinguish clearly between the way such products are processed through customs and any judgment of actual product quality.

As far as customs procedures are concerned, product quality is only considered in order to place the product in one or other category of the customs nomenclature corresponding to the harmonised international tariff system (e.g. alloy steel, non-alloy steel). Any dishonest use of customs declarations, e.g. to gain certain advantages in the application of customs duties, is punishable by law, following an inquiry by the national customs authorities.

Generally speaking, the legal basis for attesting the conformity of construction products is Commission Decision 97/597/EC of 14 July 1997 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards

reinforcing and prestressing steel for concrete(1). For its part, the Commission will continue to support the work of the European Committee for Iron and Steel Standardisation (ECISS) within the context of the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to establish harmonised standards.

However, when it comes to product quality, and in particular the possibility of products being misused, it falls to the parties involved, both buyers and sellers, to ensure that all the proper provisions are included in the contract. Since the use of steel products is subject, within the Community, to technical monitoring systems and controls which exclude the use of materials which fail to comply with standards in sensitive sectors, the falsification of quality certificates would fall within the area of private law.

(1) OJ L 240, 2.9.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/99

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Strategic reasons for undertaking research on climate change

In which areas does the European Commission believe it is important to undertake research related to climate change for strategic reasons for example, related to cooperation with the United States, or meeting the needs agreed in international research groups established within the framework of the United Nations programmes?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Strategically, and in the context of cooperation with the United States and Japan, several priority themes have been identified. These include climate prediction, carbon cycle and climate impacts research. Similarly, post-Kyoto research themes are being addressed as a priority.