ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3147/98

by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Vladivostok psychiatric hospital

Since July 1997 the Vladivostok psychiatric hospital, the only centre of its kind in a city of a million inhabitants, has not received any funds. The governor of the far eastern region and the mayor of the city both refuse to accept financial responsibility for this institution, which has 515 patients and a staff of about a hundred.

The situation at the hospital is catastrophic: it lacks medicines and food, and hygiene conditions are intolerable (no soap or detergents), making the recovery of many patients increasingly doubtful by the day.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? Has it had already made contact with the head doctor, Mr Vladimir Uchakov, to assess the magnitude of the problem and the resources needed to tackle it, possibly in the form of special assistance from the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the current situation in Russia and in particular about the conditions in the psychiatric hospital of Vladivostok.

The Commission has been providing humanitarian assistance to Russia the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) since the early 1990s. This assistance has through focused on the victims of armed conflict (e.g. in the Caucasus region), disaster relief, medical assistance to Chernobyl victims and anti-tuberculosis projects. However, to solve the problem of widespread poverty and the often insufficient material resources of the country's public health system would simply be impossible for a foreign aid agency, given the dimensions of Russia.

It does indeed seem that the general conditions in that the hospital mentioned by the Honourable Member are fairly bad by western standards. Unfortunately, this is not exceptional in Russia. It would be difficult to justify special measures in favour of one institution, while not providing the same level of assistance to all other institutions equally or worse affected.

Taking into account the relatively limited funds available, the Commission has to identify priorities in areas which can reasonably be tackled. Large-scale material assistance to the public health sector as a whole being unfortunately an unrealistic goal and beyond available resources, the Commission has decided to concentrate its efforts on operations in the above-mentioned fields. Currently, the Commission is examining the feasibility of further expanding its tuberculosis treatment programmes, one of the most urgent public health priorities at this moment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Enterprise zone - Upper Shannon

Has the Commission yet completed its consideration of the proposal by the Irish Government to grant tax concessions to businesses in the Upper Shannon region under the proposed scheme for rural renewal?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The Commission has not received as yet any notification by the Irish authorities, on the basis of Article 93 (3) of the EC Treaty, in relation to a "rural renewal" aid scheme providing tax concessions to businesses in Upper Shannon, Ireland.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/98

by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Safety of agricultural vehicles

Following a tragic accident in the West Flanders commune of Kortrijk-Heule in which a cyclist was run over by a trailer being pulled by a tractor, I would like to ask the Commission the following questions:

Although the tractor was equipped as required by the regulations with a number of rear-view mirrors, the cyclist was not visible to the driver. According to experts, blind spots such as this can only be avoided if there is a second person on board the tractor or if structural adjustments are made in the form of the addition of an opening at the bottom of the door to provide greater visibility.

Have studies already been carried out to determine whether it would be feasible to require such structural adjustments to be made and have any steps been taken on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The Commission is very anxious to inform the Honourable Member that it also deplores the tragic accident in the Kortrijk/Heule district that caused the death of a cyclist who had been run over by a trailer being pulled by a farm tractor.

The Honourable Member must realise that the Commission is highly attentive to the problems raised by the various aspects of safety.

In order to avoid that type of accident the Commission felt it necessary to amend Council Directive 74/346/EEC(1) on rear-view mirrors fitted to agricultural or forestry tractors. Those amendments were adopted on 8 June 1998 (Directive 90/40/EC)(2) and take account of the range of rear-view mirrors still used and of the conditions under which these are adjusted by the driver. These changes thus meet the wish expressed by the Honourable Member as regards improvements to the lateral field of vision from tractors.

However, the Commission must confirm that the conditions under which these devices are used are equally decisive. Indeed, rear-view mirrors that have been component type approved and fitted in accordance with Community requirements and must be correctly adjusted by the driver of the vehicle if its field of view is to cover all situations and does not include any blind spot, account here being taken of any implements attached to the tractor and of its trailer loading.

(1) OJ L 191, 15.7.1974.

(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2774/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 September 1998)

Subject: Lower rate of VAT

Following the expiry of the existing rules under the sixth VAT directive on 31 December 1998, does the Commission intend to submit proposals for other - possibly lower - VAT rates for goods and services of a social nature?

If so, what are the Commission's plans and when can specific proposals be expected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

As regards the VAT regime introduced by the Sixth Directive(1), the Commission presumes that the Honourable Member is referring to the expiry date of the standard rate of VAT, on which it will present a proposal in due course.

As far as the new common system of VAT for the single market is concerned, satisfactory progress is being made on the activities referred to in the programme presented by the Commission in 1996.

As regards the reduced rate of VAT, the Commission envisages re-examining the content of Annex H to the Sixth Directive. In accordance with the conclusions of the report on VAT rates(2), it would like to see the reduced rate being applied only to basic necessities or products fulfilling a social need.

(1) Directive 77/388/EEC (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977), as last amended by Directive 96/95/EC.

(2) COM(97) 559 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Libyan military attack on Italian fishing-boat

On Thursday 24 September, in the international waters of the Gulf of Sirte, a Libyan navy motor launch fired on and rammed the Italian fishing-boat "Orchidea" causing the death of chief engineer Rosario Magiotta.

What action does the Commission intend to take to protect Italian and Community fishermen in the Mediterranean, given the growing number of attacks they are facing and the widespread violations of international law by North African coastal States?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Commission has taken note of the Libyan military attack on an Italian fishing boat that took place in the Gulf of Sirte on Thursday 24 September 1998, causing the death of a member of the Italian vessel's crew.

The Commission is ready, within the limits of its competence, to lend its support to any representations that might be made by the Member States concerned via the appropriate European bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/98

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Age restrictions on driving cars or vans with trailers

Under Finnish law people who have reached the age of 70 may not drive cars or vans with trailers if the trailer is carrying a load. According to my information, such restrictions do not apply in any other Member State. Is this information correct and does the Commission consider that such legislation is justified? Does the Commission consider that such national legislation is consistent with internal market principles concerning freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences(1) aims to facilitate the free movement of people and to enhance road safety. Article 6 harmonises the minimum, but not the maximum, age conditions for the issue of driving licences. Furthermore, Article 7.2 of the Directive stipulates that:

"Without prejudice to provisions to be adopted by the Council in this regard, each Member State shall retain the right to determine, on the basis of national criteria, the period of validity of the driving licences which it issues."

According to the Finnish legislation, a driving licence for categories D and D1 (buses) and for categories C+E, C1+E, D+E and D1+E (heavy vehicle combinations) cannot be issued or renewed to those who have reached the age of 70 years. However, the issue or renewal of driving licences for categories A and A1 (motorcycles), B (cars), B+E (cars with trailer) and C (lorries) is possible without such age restrictions. This means that Finnish legislation does allow people over 70 to drive a car or a van with a trailer, which fall within category B+E, whether the vehicle is loaded or not.

The Commission believes that internal market principles of freedom of movement are not infringed by this legislation.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Shortcomings of the Commission as regards the EDF project to construct phase 1 of the Gitarama-Kibuve, Rwanda, road

Because of the dramatic bloody events in Rwanda since April 1994 the contract funded by the European Development Fund (EDF) to construct phase 1 of the Gitarama-Kibuve road was first suspended and then definitively cancelled by the Commission.

Why has the Commission not yet duly compensated the contractor, Astaldi S.p.a., for the damage suffered because of the circumstances?

When and how does it intend to remedy this shortcoming?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The claim by the contractor, Astaldi, to which the Honourable Member is referring, was the subject of a detailed analysis by the Commission. The Commission conveyed its conclusions to the national authorising office for the European Development Fund in Rwanda, the sole authority entitled to take a formal decision on this claim. The Commission itself is not a party to contracts financed by the EDF; its role in these contracts, according to consistent case-law, is to establish whether the conditions for Community financing are met or not. The EDF national authorising officer told the Commission it agreed with its analysis of Astaldi¢s claim and asked it to make direct contact with the contractor in the name and on behalf of Rwanda.

The Commission passed a breakdown of the analysis to Astaldi, asking it to produce certain supporting evidence and supplementary documents concerning several points made in its claim.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2514/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Damaging impact of the Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline

A huge gas pipeline is currently under construction in the Amazon area straddling Bolivia and Brazil. With a length of 3700 km and a cost of more than US$ 2 billion, it will be the largest energy project in the region and the fourth largest in the world. In the time (less than two years) that has elapsed since prospecting began for the oil to be used for the Bolivia-Brazil pipeline, a large number of complaints have been filed in Bolivia by members of the Amazon's indigenous communities, claiming abuses and breaches of local and international law by the construction companies, and, in particular, deploring the severe damage caused to the fragile ecosystem of the Amazon rainforest and the local resources of the indigenous communities. More than twenty oil companies are involved in this project for exploiting Bolivian gas, some of them from the EU (Shell, Repson, Elf Aquitaine, BP, Total, etc).

Is the Commission aware of this project?

Have any EU funds been allocated to the project?

Does the Commission not consider that this project, which rides roughshod over the rights of the indigenous communities and runs counter to the conservation of the highly sensitive Amazon environment, is contrary to the principles of the Convention on Biodiversity and the recent Commission communication on that subject?

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that EU companies operating in third countries respect the rules and standards on environmental protection and ethical conduct which have been adopted in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission has been informed by different sources about developments concerning the environmental and social effects of the construction of the Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline.

No Community funds have been allocated to the project.

The Commission agrees that Community firms are participating in these activities should be made aware of their duty to respect existing environmental and social conventions relative to these matters, be it in Europe or abroad.

The Commission will explore the possibilities of strengthening the capacity of the Bolivian authorities to contain and reverse environmental and social damage and to impose the observance of existing legislation by the firms involved in energy projects and in particular in the construction of the gas pipeline.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2227/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Conditions in which animals for slaughter are kept

In recent days, the Finnish media have given much coverage to problems associated with the bad conditions in which animals for slaughter are kept. According to statistics on slaughterhouse inspections, for example, cows and pigs have been suffering more than previously: that is to say that it has become increasingly frequent for animals taken for slaughter to be rejected as unfit for human consumption on account of disease. Because of the financial straits in which farmers find themselves and because of the way in which EU subsidies are calculated - for instance the number of days on which subsidy calculations are based - transport for slaughter is frequently delayed, causing extra problems, especially for animals which are sick and in poor condition.

What is the Commission's view of allegations that the EU's support policy regarding animals for slaughter incites farmers to maximize their profits, inter alia, by delaying slaughter dates, and how could the Union's support policy be altered so as to take better account of the deficiencies in the living conditions of animals for slaughter? How will the Commission ascertain what deficiencies there are in livestock farming within the territory of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Act of Accession for Austria, Finland and Sweden provided for the immediate introduction of common (lower) agricultural prices in these new Member States as of 1 January 1995. Finland reserved the right to grant degressive national subsidies as well as national aids to farmers during a transitional period until the problems from the small-scale structure of its agriculture are overcome.

In animal production, degressive national aids are paid on a per head basis to respect international agreements. It is not thought that payment of these aids has led to lower quality calves or pigs since the greater part of farmers' revenue still derives from the prices obtained.

The minimum standards provided in the present legislation concerning calves and pigs are based on scientific information. These directives include rules on the feeding and watering of the animals which every farmer has to observe up to the moment the animals go to the slaughterhouse, independent of subsidies. The national authorities monitor compliance with the rules and take action if there is any infringement.

Furthermore the Member States have to inform the Commission every two years of the results of the inspections carried out.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Commission competition held on 14 September 1998

Competitions are intended to select from among the candidates those who are most suitable (thus deemed to be the best) for filling responsible positions at the Commission. That objective is therefore vital both for the Community and consequently for the citizens of Europe. The organisational failings which emerged during the tests held on 14 September 1998 cannot but put the sense of responsibility of those who ran the tests in an unfavourable light. Will the Commission state what steps it intends to take to ascertain responsibility for the bad management of an operation which was nonetheless extremely expensive and what measures it plans to take to ensure that such regrettable episodes do not happen again?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions P-2922/98, P-2974/98, E-3053/98, E-3079/98, P-3101/98, P-3106/98, P-3136/98 and E-3253/98 by Mrs Napoletano and others(1).

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1991, p. 164.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/98

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: PHARE programme assistance to Poland - A4 Wroclaw-Katowice motorway

Since Poland is important as a transit country between western Europe and the CIS and as between northern and southern Europe, an in view of the heavy increase in road traffic since 1990, the EU PHARE programme is financing the modernization of the road transport system. In particular, the PHARE programme has undertaken to finance the development of the Wroclaw-Katowice A4 motorway. What is the budget for this project, when it is scheduled for completion, and what is the current situation regarding the progress of construction work?

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

(22 September 1998)

Five construction contracts for the 126 kilometre long section of the A4 motorway from near Wroclaw to Nogawczyce (west of Gliwice) were started in 1997. This section is due to open to traffic by the winter 2000/2001.

Two of these contracts, for the rehabilitation of existing bridges and the construction of new bridges, are being funded under the PHARE programme with a grant of ECU 49 million. Construction is well under way, with completion of the bridge work planned for October 2000. The other three contracts, for roadworks, have received an European investment bank (EIB) loan of ECU 225 million. The Polish government is also making a contribution equivalent to ECU 67 million to the total capital cost of this section of the A4 motorway.

The 53 kilometre long section of motorway from Nogawczyce to West by-pass of Katowice, is still at the detailed planning stage. However, it is understood that the EIB will provide future funding for construction.

Construction of the short (4,6 kilometres) section of the Katowice by-pass, is expected to start soon. This latter section is subject of a PHARE programme grant of ECU 35 million, the balance of the development cost being provided by the Polish government and EIB loan. Completion of this section is planned for 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Danube development project

The Commission's letter of 28 October 1997 reminding the Federal Republic of Germany of its obligations obviously had no effect.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Federal Government and the Land of Bavaria delay no longer in designating the area as protected?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3095/97(1), the Commission has decided to deal with this case within the infringement proceedings concerning the insufficient designation of special protected areas according to the Council Directive 79/409/EEC(2) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds in Germany. The area concerned, as well as other areas along the river Danube, is specifically highlighted in the context of this general procedure.

In the context of these infringement proceedings, the Commission sent a supplementary letter of formal notice to the German authorities. The German authorities replied and also notified the designation of a range of areas as special protected areas. However, given that neither the reply nor the designation of further areas are considered sufficient with a view to the obligation under the Directive 79/409/EEC, the Commission has decided to address a reasoned opinion to the Germany.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Enlargement - external border controls

In its reply of 27 May 1998 to Question P-1257/98(1) concerning external border controls, the Commission states that it will be possible to give detailed answers to the questions I raised only after the Council has defined the Schengen acquis and after its transposition by the applicant countries has been reviewed.

1. When does the Commission believe that the definition of the Schengen acquis is likely to be completed, and how will information be supplied concerning the results of the review?

2. How long is the review of transposition in the Member States likely to take?

The Commission also says that it is primarily up to the applicant countries to overcome the inadequacies, but that the "Commission" will support their efforts through existing Community programmes.

3. From which specific programmes has such support so far been given, or are there plans to give it during the current budgetary period, how much funding is being provided (as a percentage of the total costs involved) and what nominal amounts are involved (in ECU)?

4. To what extent have the applicant countries taken advantage of the opportunity to cover their co-financing contribution from Phare appropriations?

5. According to the Commission's estimate, what percentage of expenditure on all Community programmes is being used to assist the applicant countries?

6. Austria is among the more recent Schengen Member States, and the cost of meeting the criteria regarding external border controls was particularly high because of its location (its long Schengen external border). Has Austria received any assistance in meeting the cost from Community programmes?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 85.