ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Research programmes

What criteria are used in the selection of experts responsible for deciding on the award of research funds? Is any balance between the Member States observed in making this selection?

Can the Commission say how many experts, and which ones precisely, were involved in the award of funds to Brite-Euram in 1996?

Can the Commission rule out the possibility that some countries were disproportionately under-represented, or not represented at all, and that this had any effect on the award of funds?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

The primary criteria for choosing experts to evaluate proposals submitted to European Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes are:

- competence and experience appropriate to the area under consideration;

- an appropriate balance of backgrounds (e.g. industrial, academic, users);

- absence of links with the consortia submitting the proposals examined;

- absence of bias either for or against any particular proposal or proposing team.

Experts are chosen from as broad a geographical base as possible, mainly from within the Member States and third countries associated with the framework programme. Experts from third countries are also chosen if their particular skills are needed. As far as possible, the Commission avoids using experts to evaluate a proposal who come from the same country as the proposal coordinator. In addition, experts are regularly replaced to guard against the formation of "clubs" of regular evaluators.

The numbers and backgrounds of the expert evaluators used in 1996 by the industrial and materials technologies (Brite-Euram III) programme were as follows:

>TABLE>

Because of problems with the availability of experts during the evaluation sessions, it is not always possible to maintain the planned geographical spread. It is clear from the results of evaluation sessions, though, that the proportion of experts from any particular country in the evaluation panels has never had any effect on the rating of proposals from that country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: LIFE and deadlines for the completion of projects

The local press in Mantua has recently published aticles concerning delays in the pilot phase of a project referred to as the "Ecovia" project which, it is reported, is co-funded by the LIFE financial instrument for the environment. The articles refer to the project being "aborted" and wonder whether the European Community "will understand this waste".

Would the Commission state:

1. Whether it is true that Life financed a project for the city of Mantua, which falls within my constituency?

2. If so, what is the project and what was the amount of funding involved?

3. Is there a deadline for the completion of the project on which funding is conditional?

4. How many new jobs would the completion of the project generate?

5. What will happen to the funds allocated if the project is not fully completed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

1. By decision of 24 November 1995, the Commission granted LIFE financial support for the "Ecovia" project, which concerns a model for social integration between Mantua and its rural surroundings and focuses on environmental objectives, especially road traffic reduction.

2. The Community's financial support is fixed at a maximum of ECU 440 000.

3. The last deadline for completion of the project was 30 April 1998. This could be extended by the Commission at the beneficiary's request.

4. None of the projects funded by LIFE are designed to create new jobs.

5. If the project is not fully completed, the Commission can cancel its contribution and recover the sums paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: European Business Weeks

The proposal for a Council decision on a third multiannual programme for small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union pays particular attention to the organization of European Business Weeks.

Such an initiative will doubtless help SMEs to place their strategies on a European and international footing, in particular by improving information services.

Can the Commission indicate what results have been achieved by the European Business Weeks already held, what means of promoting and encouraging the organization of such weeks can be made available to the organizers and whether a standard framework has been created for the above business events?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

Two "European Business Weeks" have been organised so far: the first in March 1992 dealt with Community instruments for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with a view to 1993 and the single market, and the other in March 1993 was entitled "Your SME, the dynamic force within the single market".

Each of these weeks comprised almost 2 500 events (press conferences, video conferences, round-table discussions, workshops, fairs, open days), which were held in 400, and then 600, different European towns. The events were organised by members of the information and cooperation networks (Euro-Info Centres and BC-NET Business Cooperation Network) and by the Business Cooperation Centres (BCC) set up by the Commission.

Around 60 000 heads of enterprises benefited from this direct contact and information during these two weeks, which received extensive media coverage. In addition, they had a major knock-on effect, both in stimulating the Commission networks and in involving national, regional and local authorities and all other bodies operating in the business environment. The overall results of these two events have been sent directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

Since then, the Euro-Info Centres have conducted promotional campaigns aimed at enterprises in general, and SMEs in particular, on the topics of standardisation and certification, the euro, the information society, and safety, hygiene and health at work.

The Commission is currently looking into the possibility of organising events related to the challenges of the next millennium (transition to the year 2000) specifically for heads of enterprises. These events on key issues should draw on past successes and involve all local partners engaged in business-development and job-creation activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Disabled people and the draft Structural Fund Regulations

Given that the Commission's proposed Structural Fund Regulations specifically require equal opportunities for women, why did it not include a similar equal opportunities requirement for disabled people?

Does the Commission agree that, if the European Union is serious about the principle of mainstreaming disability in its programmes, it is important to set out this requirement as clearly as possible to the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The Honourable Member brings together two policy aims which are both central within the design and delivery of the structural funds but which must be differentiated for reasons related to legislation and policy.

The obligations related to equality for men and women result from specific legal requirements in the EC Treaty which will be strengthened further by the Amsterdam Treaty, in particular the provisions relating to equality in labour market opportunities and treatment at work. Furthermore, the new Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty provides powers for the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on disability.

There will also be new general provisions regarding the need to combat the exclusion of disadvantaged groups from the labour market, including provision for people with disabilities. The Commission, building on a strong record of action in this field so far, acknowledges that people with disabilities merit a clear and strong priority within actions designed to implement exclusion activities and, in the partnership with the Member States in implementing the structural funds, will reflect this priority in its guidance on the design, delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1512/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Archaeological remains in the Portuense district of Rome

According to reports in the local press a private company in the Portuense district of Rome, without any authorization other than a permit issued by the Rome provincial government for' temporary road access to a building site', has started to build a road on land belonging to the local authority. There have already been numerous instances of unauthorized building work in this area. Valuable ancient mosaics have recently been found in the area, in particular during excavation work in connection with the road-building, as well as an ancient sarcophagus and the buried remains of an aqueduct built during the reign of Claudius.

These precious finds were apparently immediately concealed and many of them stolen.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider it appropriate to ask the Italian authorities to act to prevent the destruction of important archaeological remains;

2. whether there are specific directives designed to safeguard the architectural heritage and whether Italy has fully incorporated their recommendations into national law;

3. whether there are any Commission documents and studies on the subject;

4. what its general views are on the issue?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

There is no specific Community directive designed to safeguard archaeological remains, which means that there is no legal basis for Commission action in this case. The protection of cultural heritage is the direct responsibility of the Member States' national or regional authorities.

The Commission has supported exemplary projects, some of which are linked to archaeology. Such initiatives are currently supported under the Raphaël Programme. None of them, however, is related to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission regrets these events and hopes that the Italian legislation, chiefly Act No 1089 of 1 June 1939, which has protected the exceptional heritage of the peninsula for more than sixty years now, will be applied strictly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2329/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Echelon network

A European Parliament report (published by the STOA) indicates that an industrial espionage data network known as "ECHELON" has been developed with the participation of countries which are among the principal trade rivals of the EU (USA, Canada etc.), together with the United Kingdom. According to the report, the network does not limit itself to monitoring company activities but is also "devoting its attention" to governments and organizations of every kind.

This is a particularly serious matter giving rise to legitimate queries concerning the possibility of prying into the lives of EU citizens, thereby invading their privacy.

What view does the Commission take of the use of the above network for espionage purposes with its enormous implications, distorting free competition and endangering individual privacy and constituting an act of wilful provocation by the United Kingdom since its participation in a network which spies on other European Union Member States undermines any notion of solidarity?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1776/98 by Mr Manisco(1).

(1) See page 90.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/98

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Duisburg in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:

1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Duisburg from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or - as direct allocations - universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Answer given by MrSanter on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Staff deployment

How many of the staff of all categories in DG XVII have the same nationality as the Commissioner responsible for that Directorate-General? How does this compare with the number of staff having the Commissioner's nationality in the Commission as a whole?

How many staff who have the Commissioner's nationality have been recruited to DG XVII since the beginning of 1995, and how does this compare with the overall level of recruitment of staff having the Commissioner's nationality since 1995?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

On 1 April 1998, the number of staff of the Directorate general for energy who were of the nationality referred to in the Honourable Member's Written Question was as follows:

Category A 24 out of 191 posts occupied;

Category B 10 out of 183 posts occupied;

Category C 7 out of 133 posts occupied;

Total 41 out of 507 posts occupied;

In the Commission as a whole the situation of this nationality is as follows:

Category A 341 out of 6 007 posts occupied;

Category B 131 out of 3 564 posts occupied;

Category C 200 out of 5 642 posts occupied;

Category D 32 out of 842 posts occupied;

Category LA 145 out of 1 889 posts occupied;

Total 849 out of 17 961 posts occupied.

Since the beginning of 1995, the Directorate general for energy has recruited 9 officials and other servants of this nationality (6 A; 1 B; 2 C).

Since 1995, in the Commission as a whole, 138 officials and other servants of this nationality have been recruited (57 A; 23 B; 23 C; 3 D; 32 LA).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1372/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Trade union organizations and fish farms

There has been a spectacular growth in fish farms in Greece, especially in the west of the country where over 1 000 persons are employed in this sector. The endeavours of trade union organizations, and notably the Mesolongi Labour Centre, have resulted in the establishment of a trade union which is seeking to organize fish farm workers from Mesolongi to Igoumenitsa. However, I have been receiving a stream of complaints from trade union organizations about moves by employers aimed at pressurizing workers into withdrawing their signatures from the founding charter of the new trade union or not joining it in the first place. I have myself witnessed some of these cases in person when I visited the region.

Will the Commission say whether such actions are compatible with the basic principles of Community policy, the Social Charter and the other provisions of the Treaties and whether it considers it opportune to ask the Greek authorities to ensure compliance in this specific instance?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 1998)

There is no Community legislation on the right of association. In fact, Article 2 (4) of the Agreement on social policy which is to be incorporated into Article 137 of the EC Treaty clearly states that the provisions of the Article shall not apply, inter alia, to the right of association.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3069/98 by David BOWE to the Commission. Primates



Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0159



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3069/98 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (9 October 1998) Subject: Primates What is the Commission's policy and practice regarding EU finances being used to fund primate experiments, and what are the total amounts of EU funding expended on primate experiments for each of the following years: 1996, 1997, 1998 (to date); and how many primates does this represent?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/98

by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) , Hiltrud Breyer (V) , Charles Goerens (ELDR) , Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) , Claudia Roth (V) , Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania

1. How, in the Commission's opinion, can the strategy for bringing Bulgaria and Romania closer to the European Union be reconciled with the visa requirement for their nationals?

2. Is the Commission aware of the sometimes unreasonable conditions under which visas are issued to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals for entry into a Member State of the EU? Does the Commission intend to ease the requirements and conditions for the issue of such visas and to abolish them in the foreseeable future?

3. Does the Commission regard the proportion of Roma people in the two countries as an obstacle to the removal of the latter from the common list compiled pursuant to Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community? If so, why?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2333/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Registration tax on vehicles

Is the Commission aware of the imposition of a registration tax on vehicles imported to Ireland second-hand from other Member States? The Irish Revenue Authorities impose this tax on a notional value which always exceeds the real market value. Does the Commission agree that this tax contravenes the principles of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the imposition of a registration tax on second hand cars in Ireland. Generally the Irish registration tax on passenger cars is charged on the first registration of the vehicle as a percentage of the retail value including VAT (open market selling price). In accordance with the case law of the Court of justice, as confirmed by the judgement of 23 October 1997 in case C-375/95 (Commission v Greece), the registration tax on second hand cars is to be calculated on the basis of the current value of the car taking into account the actual depreciation of the vehicle. With regard to vehicles brought permanently from one Member State into another, a system of taxation can only be considered compatible with Article 95 of the EC Treaty if it is proved to be so structured as to exclude any possibility of imported products being taxed more heavily than domestic products, so that it cannot in any event have a discriminatory effect. In other words Article 95 of the EC Treaty is infringed where the taxation on the imported product and that on the similar domestic product are calculated in a different manner on the basis of different criteria which lead to higher taxation being imposed on the imported product. The value of the imported second hand car should then be compared with second hand cars which are for sale in Ireland. Indeed, the resale price of the latter includes a residual part of the taxes paid at the time of their first registration in Ireland (generally, when the car was new).

In the circumstances, it is difficult to conclude from the information given about the calculation of the tax base according to a notional value that the Irish registration tax on imported second hand cars has to be regarded as an infringement of the basic principles mentioned above. If the Honourable Member has knowledge of particular cases, the Commission would like to examine them. It would not fail to take the necessary measures if the principles of Community law were found not to have been respected. In this context the Commission recently adopted a proposal for a Council directive(1) in order to amend existing Community legislation and improve the free movement of persons and vehicles. In the case of transfers of residence from one Member State to another, it proposed that Member States should not impose registration taxes on vehicles brought into their territory.

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(29 June 1998)

Subject: Regulation No 258/97 on novel foods

Will the Commission please explain how the provisions of Article 8 of Regulation No 258/97(1) will work in practice. In particular:

- what form of words is recommended to comply with the provisions of the last subparagraph of Article 8(1)(a), which require labelling to indicate the characteristics or properties modified and the method by which the characteristics or properties were obtained?

- what criteria will be applied to the assessments required under Article 8(1)(b) and (c) (special health implications and ethical concerns) and who will apply them?

Reply

(19 October 1998)

In accordance with the rules of the Treaty, it is for Member States to take the measures required to implement the Regulation referred to by the Honourable Member and for the Commission to ensure such implementation, subject to possible verification by the Court.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Nuclear tests

Following the recent nuclear tests in Asia, there is deep apprehension about Turkey's cooperation with Pakistan on their nuclear programmes and about the increase in Turkish activity in the nuclear power sector. Reactors are being set up in areas which are particularly prone to earthquake (Akkuyu in Turkey). Fears have also been voiced that the Akkuyu reactors are not only designed to generate electricity but also to transform the country into a nuclear power.

1. In regard to the construction of the reactors at Akkuyu, is the Commission aware of the risks of a possible severe earth tremor, and

2. will the Commission do everything within its power to monitor any aid which Turkey or any other countries provide Pakistan for the production of nuclear weapons?

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

(18 September 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1876/98 by Mr Kaklamanis(1).

The Commission has no competence to participate in site selection processes. Turkey's authorities, and in particular its nuclear regulatory body - the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEA) - are responsible for such selection, within the general framework of guidance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The future Akkuyu nuclear power station is designed for civilian use to meet Turkey's growing demand for electricity. The contractual relations between the Community and Turkey do not allow the Commission to cooperate with Turkey on nuclear energy.

Turkey is party to the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that Turkey does not abuse the peaceful use of nuclear energy for military purposes, particularly in its relations with third countries which have not signed the Non-proliferation Treaty.

In the wake of the recent earthquake in the Adana region, the Turkish authorities have confirmed that every measure has been taken to make the future Akkuyu power station secure. No building has yet commenced on site and the consortium chosen to undertake the work should have been made public in August.

(1) See page 12.