ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/99

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Situation of an official in the light of the Disciplinary Board's conclusions

Even though the former ECHO director has been cleared of any blame by the College of Commissioners following the conclusion of the disciplinary procedures laid down in the Staff Regulations, individuals are launching initiatives within the Commission and other institutions with the aim of reopening the case.

1. Does the Commission take the view that the exoneration of the former ECHO director by the College of Commissioners following the intervention of the Disciplinary Board and the investigation carried out by the former UCLAF constitutes the end of the proceedings and that, now that judgment has been passed, the case can be reopened only under the conditions laid down in Article 11 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations?

2. Will the Commission provide assistance, in accordance with Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, to an official who is continuing to suffer harassment from the staff of the Commission and from members of other institutions even though he has been exonerated under the Commission's own procedures? What form will this assistance take?

3. How will the Commission make good the harm done to this official now that his innocence in the ECHO affair has been proven?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

1. The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that the disciplinary proceedings which were instituted against the former Director of ECHO were closed by the Commission's decision of 14 July 1999 in accordance with the reasoned opinion delivered by the Disciplinary Board. The decision to close the proceedings was based on the facts which were then at the disposal of the Commission. In any disciplinary case, it is only possible to re-open proceedings if new facts are discovered.

2. and 3. Any official who is threatened, attacked, insulted or defamed as an official in relation to facts in respect of which a decision has been taken not to discipline him or her is entitled to assistance from the Institution of their employment under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. This assistance will usually take the form of paying the individual's legal fees. The Commission can confirm that it is providing such assistance in the case at issue, in keeping with the Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/99

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Flight delays in the European Union

Air traffic control is said to be the cause of the delays which consistently affect intra-European flights, with serious personal and financial consequences for passengers and users of freight transport. This problem also affects the image of airlines, which also suffer considerably from the increasing number of charges they have to pay for the use of each section of airspace and the heavy costs arising from the amount of time during which aircraft and their crews are unable to fly.

Will the Commission state what body should be deemed responsible for these serious disruptions and what measures it can take to remedy or, at least, improve the situation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

In application of the provisions of the Chicago Convention, the provision of air traffic services is a responsibility of States. In view of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Member the Commission has suggested in the past that the Community should act in this field and presented appropriate measures in two communications(1).

The ATM community and more generally Member States perceived the proposals of the Commission as unduly interfering with the established regional (Eurocontrol) and national frameworks where similar problems were addressed and, according to them, well in hand. In recent years, however, these organisations have shown their inability to respond adequately to the demand of airspace users in terms of providing increased capacity and flight efficiency.

The further deterioration of the situation convinced the Council to put the question on the agenda of its meeting last June 1999 and to invite the Commission to analyse the situation, identify possible new initiatives and report back in December 1999. In this context, the Commission has approved on 1 December 1999 a communication to the Council and the Parliament on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management system it needs to remedy the existing chaotic situation.

In parallel, the Commission is negotiating the accession of the Community to Eurocontrol so that the Community may become a full member of this international organisation and develop its initiatives within the institutional framework established at European level.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on congestion and crisis in air traffic (COM(95) 318 final) and the Air traffic management (ATM) white paper Freeing Europe's airspace (COM(96) 57 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Fire safety in hotels

An EC Recommendation on Fire Safety in existing hotels (86/666/EEC(1)) was adopted in 1986.

1. What objective assessment has been undertaken of the application of these recommendations by Member States?

2. Is the Commission satisfied that the recommendations are being implemented in full by each of the Member States?

3. Which Member States have modified national legislation to incorporate the recommendations regarding minimum safety standards and periodic inspections?

4. Does the Commission intent to review the need for additional measures to encourage the adoption of minimum standards in both existing and new hotels?

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986, p. 60.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

1. In order to check that all Member States had correctly interpreted and taken into account in their national legislation the content of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels(1), the Commission commissioned an independent study. The final report was submitted in April 1996.

2. and 3. The Commission has commented on this issue in a number of answers to previous parliamentary questions. The Honourable Member can consult in particular the answers to questions E-1423/97 by Mrs Pollack(2) and H-1179/98 by Mr Watson during Question Time in the January 1999 part-session(3).

Given the interest shown and the degree of detail in the questions asked, the Commission will forward a copy of the 1996 study directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat-General.

This study shows that the principles of the recommendation have in general been incorporated by national legislation. However, the Commission is aware of the concerns expressed, particularly by some Members of Parliament or associations, regarding the practical application of the rules in question and the checks carried out.

4. The Commission fully intends to re-examine the question of fire safety in hotels. To this end, an interdepartmental working group has recently been formed.

In the course of the year 2000, the Commission intends to review the matter once again in order to determine what action needs to be taken. It intends, in this connection, to put the subject on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the consumer safety working party, a group of experts which assists the Commission in the area of consumer safety.

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.

(2) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.

(3) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/99

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: State aid to shipbuilding

Can the Commission confirm that discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic of South Korea on the subject of unfair competition in the field of shipbuilding because of the payment of excessive state aid by that Government?

If so, what progress has been made?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2453/99 and E-2454/99 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

The Commission has received numerous submissions from European industry and the Member States containing allegations about the use of subsidies or dumping in South Korea.

On 9 November 1999 the Council instructed the Commission to initiate certain measures to put a stop to the unfair practices encountered in the industry.

The Commission plans to enter into a joint (government/industry) bilateral dialogue with South Korea with a view to resolving the problems. The first such meeting took place in Paris on 14 December 1999 to coincide with a meeting of the OECD's Working Party No 6 on Shipbuilding.

On the multilateral front the Commission is also considering anti-subsidy proceedings against Korea in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). If the European industry lodges a complaint backed up by the necessary evidence it could open an investigation under Council Regulation (EC) No 3284/94 of 22 December 1994on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community(1).

The Commission will be reporting on the situation to the next Council meeting of industry ministers and this should enable the Community to decide whether other measures may be necessary to remedy the situation.

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/99

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

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

When will the European Union accede to Eurocontrol?

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 E-2035/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Tax on engagement rings

I have had a complaint from a constituent who is a British subject living in Australia. He sent his fiancée, in Portugal, an engagement ring declaring the content and value on the packet and paying all Australian taxes. Upon receipt in Portugal the ring was taxed at 17 %. Can the Commission confirm whether an engagement ring is a taxable item?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

Small presents which are sent from a private person living in a third country to another private person living in the Community can only be imported free of import duties and taxes if they do not exceed a value of 45(1). Since the value of the engagement ring seemed to have exceeded this limit, the Portuguese authorities had the right to apply the import taxes to the whole value of the imported ring.

(1) Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983) as modified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff and Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (OJ L 123, 17.5.1988); and Article 14(1d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977); Article 1 of Council Directive 85/576/EEC of 20 December 1985 amending Directive 78/1035/EEC on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries (OJ L 372, 31.12.1985), and Article 1 of Council Directive 78/1035/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries (OJ L 366, 28.12.1978).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: EU funds for the Krsko nuclear power station in Slovenia

Austria has always led the way as regards the goal of a nuclear-free Central Europe. The country is, however, surrounded by nuclear power stations. As these fail, in many cases, to meet the required safety standards, it is vital to Austria that they are decommissioned.

1. Does the Krsko nuclear power station receive, or has it received, any form of EU financial assistance?

2. If so, what is the amount of such assistance?

3. In what form is such assistance granted (direct investments or loans)?

4. Under what programmes is such assistance granted?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1999)

The safety of nuclear power plants in Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) is one of the main priorities of the Commission. This has been clearly underlined in the Agenda 2000 and in the Commission communication to the Council and to the Parliament of March 1998(1). In both documents, the CEEC nuclear installations are classified in three categories: reactors of Western design, reactors of Soviet design considered upgradable and reactors of Soviet design considered non-upgradable.

The Krsko nuclear power plant belongs to the first category. For this category, the March 1998 communication of the Commission establishes that the main objective is to ensure that the reactors remain at a high safety level over the long run.

In addition, the Council has, in its conclusions on nuclear safety in the context of the enlargement of the Union of 7 December 1998, asked the Commission to continue to co-operate, for example within the context of the Phare programme, to help improve nuclear safety in the candidate states. In particular, the Commission has been asked to promote through co-operation, the development of technically competent, adequately resourced and fully independent nuclear safety authorities.

Following this line, support is currently being provided to the Krsko nuclear plant in the framework of the Phare programme. An amount of 500 000 has been allocated to carry out a seismic analysis of the Krsko site. The project is currently on-going and first results are expected by the end of the present year.

Furthermore, also in the framework of the Phare programme, more than 1 million have been allocated to support the nuclear security authority in Slovenia, notably to transfer methodologies and procedures from Community nuclear safety regulators. A technical support to the Slovenian nuclear safety authority to review the results of the seismic analysis of the Krsko plant is also foreseen.

(1) COM(98) 134 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2411/99

by Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: The Murcia region and the ERDF

By Decision C(94) 2587 the Commission approved a global subsidy for modernising the production and marketing structures of companies working in the Murcia region, raising the region's human resources standards and hence promoting the creation of long term employment.

Will the Commission provide full details of:

1. the subsidies and funding paid out to date pursuant to this Decision, and

2. a list of the recipients of these monies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The global grant allotted to the region of Murcia by decision C(94) 2587, under the European Regional Development Fund for the current 1994-1999 programming period, amounts to 76,16 million.

By 31 December 1998, the body responsible for managing the grant (Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia) had granted aid to 4 434 enterprises in the region for a total amount of 62,02.

The breakdown of aid by measure is as follows:

>TABLE>

A detailed list of the recipients of this aid is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2780/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Price support measures for juicing oranges in Greece

Aid for juicing oranges has been reduced by 30 % because of the overshooting of the current processing threshold of 1 189 000 tonnes, set by the Commission for the 1999-2000 period, and it is expected that this reduction will lead to a further drop in producers' incomes, since the prices fixed do not cover production costs, while in contracts which have been signed with the processors the trade price is also unusually low.

The 1 189 000-tonne threshold set for the imposition of penalties on orange production was calculated on the basis of years during which unusually low commercial quantities were produced, due to various circumstances, and it clearly does not correspond to actual production levels, as Parliament acknowledged in its sitting on 14 April 1999, when it suggested the threshold should be set at 1 665 000 tonnes. Does the Commission therefore intend to set a higher ceiling for processing oranges in order to reduce penalties and, primarily, to protect producers' incomes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Citrus growers must derive their income from selling their fruit on both the fresh and the processing markets. The processing aid is complementary to that income.

The threshold for oranges set by the Council was calculated using the quantities processed in the past with Community aid.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits(1) requires the Commission to submit a report on application of the processed citrus scheme to the Council accompanied by any appropriate proposals. It is in the context of this report that the Commission will examine the threshold level for oranges.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2760/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The Tirana-Kukes-Prizren-Pristina road link

The Kosovo conflict and, more particularly, the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Kosovars to Albania, has not only shown up the inadequacy of road links between Albania and Kosovo but also seriously damaged existing roads.

Can the Commission provide any information at its disposal on plans to rebuild and modernise the Tirana-Kukes-Prizren-Pristina road? Can it say what time-scale is involved? Can it also say whether it regards this as a Union priority project for the region? Lastly, can it say say whether any of the various international organisations (such as the IBRD and World Bank) have decided to finance this project, and if so how much each will be contributing?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission considers the improvement of lines of communication in Kosovo and Albania as a priority, especially to make trade and the delivery of humanitarian aid easier. An emergency programme was set up before the onset of winter to ensure the survival of the Kosovar road network involving specific repairs to the roads. Priority routes for modernisation will be defined in the light of the analysis of foreseeable traffic flows to and from bordering countries. The Pristina-Skopje-Salonica route is a priority, the link with Tirana-Kukes is another possibility, as is the Montenegro route (Podgorica-Bar). The Tirana-Kukes-Pristina road is not on a Pan-European corridor or a major international transit route. The World Bank and the Italians are already rehabilitating the Tirana-Shkoder section, which is part of the Albanian national north-south network. The Shkoder-Kukes section has just been awarded a grant from the World Bank for urgent repairs. The final section between Kukes and the Kosovar border (Morina) may receive a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Commission is not involved on the Tirana-Morina road link; however it is participating in Albania in several major projects on the Pan-European VIII corridor and the north-south national highway. The general state of the Tirana-Morina road due to lack of maintenance makes it unusable at certain times during the winter and extremely difficult throughout the year.

International organisations such as the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are not involved in financing for the road sector in Kosovo.

The Commission is ready to undertake the necessary studies with the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) on the possibility of improving the road network there and future work in Albania.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE), Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Raffaele Fitto (PPE-DE), Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE), Mario Mauro (PPE-DE), Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: The case of Silvia Baraldini payment of a fine

Is the President of the Commission aware of the case concerning the payment, by the Italian Government which at the time was led by Mr Prodi himself, of the $50 000 fine imposed on Silvia Baraldini?

Apart from the fact that this is an exceptionally serious matter, it should be pointed out that:

- under formal authorisation from an entire Directorate-General of the ministry concerned, the budget of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was manipulated, without reasons and purposes being given;

- the Italian 1997 Finance Act a fundamental State law, comprising as it does the sum total of each individual ministry coming under Tables A and B thereof was manipulated.

What is the Commission's view of this matter, which involved a Member State and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.