ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Resolution on forest fires

The European Parliament recently adopted resolution B4-0815/98 on the forest fires which occurred in the European Union in the summer of 1998, paragraph 2 of which calls on the Commission "to make available the funds required to alleviate, as far as possible, the economic and environmental damage suffered by the regions affected".

Has the decision taken by the European Parliament in this respect been implemented?

More precisely, have any funds been released from the budget to alleviate the damage caused by the forest fires in Tenerife (Canary Islands), Catalonia, Galicia and Castilla-León?

What are the usual procedures for granting such aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 1999)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-3373/98 by Mrs Ferrer(1) concerning aid granted to Spain and to Catalonia for forest fire prevention.

Apart from the fire prevention measures part-financed under Council Regulation (EEC) 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire(2), and the reafforestation measures and erosion control measures provided for in regional development plans and part-financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and the Cohesion Fund, the Commission does not have any additional financial resources available to help the disaster regions. However, measures in the Single Programming Document (SPD) may be reprogrammed to allocate appropriations to emergency measures introduced as a result of the recent forest fires. However, the members of the SPD monitoring committee have not yet been approached by the region concerned with such a request. If they do approve an application their decision must be communicated to the Commission so that the reprogramming procedure may be set in motion.

(1) See page 60.

(2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3703/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Health insurance and discrimination against women

1. Is the Council aware that women pay higher health insurance contributions?

2. Does it see this as contravening the principle of equality?

3. What measures is it planning to take to put a stop to this discriminatory practice?

Reply

(9 March 1999)

For its part the Council has no information concerning discrimination against women of the type described by the Honourable Member in her question. In any case, it is for the Commission to ensure the application of the provisions of the EC Treaty and of the provisions adopted by the institutions pursuant thereto.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3485/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Recruitment of staff at the European Central Bank

Will the Commission say how many officials of Greek nationality are employed at the European Central Bank, exactly what posts they occupy and what is the total number of officials employed at this new organisation (broken down by nationality), since it is self-evident that recruitment must be transparent and based on objective criteria and fully respect the principle of the equitable and proportionate representation of all EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the Honourable Member's question, which should be addressed to the institution concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3545/98

by Friedrich Wolf (V) to the Commission

(18 November 1998)

Subject: Tax harmonization

What action does the Commission intend to take in the field of tax harmonization and tax coordination as a result of the changes within the Council following the Bundestag elections in Germany? Does the fact that Germany, like other influential Member States, now has Greens and Social Democrats in its government mean that there are renewed prospects of a reduction in competitive tax dumping in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Measures to combat harmful tax competition received the unanimous support of the Ecofin Council on 1 December 1997. This objective was clearly reaffirmed by the Ecofin Council on 1 December 1998.

With a view to reducing the distortions that still exist within the single market, preventing substantial losses of tax receipts and rearranging tax structures in a manner more conducive to employment, the need for coordinated action at European level led to the adoption of a code of conduct for business taxation designed to curb harmful tax measures.

This political undertaking has been unanimously endorsed. The Honourable Member will agree with the Commission that it represents a positive step that should be pursued and encouraged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/98

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Disposal of sewage sludge

Given that EU legislation will shortly prohibit the disposal of sewage sludge at sea, what alternative means of disposal are available?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1998)

Traditionally, there are four main routes for sludge disposal: re-use in agriculture, incineration, landfilling and dumping at sea. Due to environmental concerns, Community legislation will phase out the disposal of sludge at sea by the end of 1998. Indeed, Article 14 (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC(1) concerning urban waste-water treatment states that "Member States shall ensure that by 31 December 1998 the disposal of sludge to surface waters by dumping from ships, by discharge from pipelines or by other means is phased out".

Provided that the concentration values for heavy metals in sewage sludge stay within the limits set in Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture(2) and that sludge is treated in order to reduce its fermentability, a possible option is to use sewage sludge as fertiliser or soil improver in agricultural soils. Sewage sludge is in fact a mixture of organic matter and nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium. Article 14 (1) of Directive 91/271/EEC states that "Sludge arising from waste water treatment shall be re-used whenever appropriate. Disposal routes shall minimise the adverse effects on the environment". Directive 86/278/EEC seeks to encourage the correct use of sewage sludge.

Incineration of sewage sludge, preferably with energy recovery, may be a sound disposal option when the sludge is too contaminated and its use in agriculture is not allowed. Incineration is in general rather expensive and should be used only when the agricultural outlet is not available.

Landfilling, although not prohibited by Community law, is to be considered as the least environmentally sound way of dealing with sewage sludge. Sludge is mainly composed of organic matter that in a landfill would decompose, producing methane which is one of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3499/98

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: The Commission's use of private consultants

As part of the reform of the Structural Funds, the Commission intends to decentralise further the operation of Structural Fund programmes, withdrawing from the day-to-day management of programmes in favour of a stronger Commission "policing" role. During the 1994-1999 programme, how many consultants has the Commission engaged in the administration of the following programmes?

What has been the total cost, and what percentage of the programmes allocations does it represent:

- across the EU as a whole,

- across each Objective: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5b and 6

- and across each Community Initiative?

Can the Commission publish the details?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

Technical assistance provided under the Structural Funds is to a large extent included in the operational programmes. A limited proportion of the appropriations may also be allocated directly to the Commission.

In the former case, the technical assistance is administered directly by the authorities responsible for the programmes and not by the Commission.

In the latter case, the assistance is subject to rules and ceilings laid down by the various Regulations governing the Funds. It is broken down by Fund and not by objective, and is mainly used for studies, assessments, information and publicity campaigns and the preparation and monitoring of the operations. It takes various forms, e.g. subsidies, contracts with consultants, specific agreements and framework contracts.

The expenditure incurred is published in the annual reports on the Structural Funds. The data for 1994-97 are thus presented by Fund on pages 48 to 51 of the 9th Annual Report on 1997(1) (English version). New, comprehensive information on the subject has also just been presented by the Commission to Parliament in connection with the consideration by the latter of the charging of expenditure on technical and administrative assistance against the operating appropriations.

(1) COM(98) 562 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2494/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Transport of horses for slaughter from Eastern Europe

According to the Commission's figures, over 120 000 horses were transported for slaughter into the EU from Eastern Europe in 1994.

1. Does the Commission have figures for more recent years?

2. Is the Commission satisfied that EU animal welfare provisions are respected in these cases, in particular the rules on the transport of live animals?

3. What mechanisms exist to monitor and ensure the application of these rules, and does the Commission consider these mechanisms to be adequate?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1998)

1. The Commission is sending a table direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

2. The Commission is aware that animal welfare conditions under which slaughter horses and other farm animals are transported from Eastern European third countries towards certain Member States are not always satisfactory.

3. As far as the mechanisms to monitor and ensure the application of Community rules on animal welfare during transport are concerned, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it is up to the Member States to ensure that the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport(1) are met. In the opinion of the Commission, the checks carried out so far by the Member States, have not always had the desired effects, in particular not in Member States where Council Directive 95/29/EC(2) (by which Directive 91/628/EEC was modified considerably) has not yet or not yet completely been transposed into national legislation.

The Commission itself, on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 91/628/EEC, has made use of its prerogative to carry out checks and has organised missions to all Member States. Shortcomings found have been communicated to the Member States concerned, asking them to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with Community animal welfare rules. The Commission intends to intensify these checks, after completion of the training of the additional workforce of veterinary experts who are being recruited. Among other things, the Commission is planning to reinforce its checks at the veterinary border inspection posts of the Eastern borders of the Community and to deepen its collaboration with Eastern European countries, which will help to enforce Community animal welfare rules and to assure a better protection of horses and other farm animals.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Toy museum

Nearly all major European cities, Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Budapest, Nuremberg, Göppingen (headquarters of Marklin), London and Paris, have a toy museum. Germany, France and England were the main manufacturers of toys during the interwar period and this is nearly always reflected in the collections of toys produced in those countries which the museums hold. In Italy, on the other hand, partly because people were less wealthy, toy factories were rarer and made products which, although less sophisticated, were clearly superior as regards being imaginative and varied. As a result, the small quantities of toys produced and the low-grade materials used in their manufacture have contributed to an impoverishment of the collection and preservation of Italian toys. Currently in Italy, in the historic centre of a village near Rome, a cultural association called "La memoria giocosa" [the playful memory] runs a toy museum containing over 1 500 period artefacts dating from between 1920 and 1960 which belong to the association itself. It is proposed that the toys, which come from Germany, France, England, Italy and the United States, be displayed in more suitable premises of at least 200 m2 in order for the museum's full potential to be realised.

In view of the important educational value of toy museums, the tourist and promotional activities which could be developed in the region, the importance of preserving this aspect of our cultural heritage, and above all, the fact that Italy does not have a toy museum, can the Commission say:

1. whether there are any Community programmes or initiatives which cover the setting up of a toy museum;

2. whether there is any possibility of aid or economic incentives in the form of grants to publicise such an initiative?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 1999)

1. The Community initiative best suited to the Honourable Member's question is the 1999 Raphael programme(1) which, in Action 1 provides for the safeguarding and enhancement of the European movable cultural heritage by promoting the pooling of skills and the development of best practice with reference to themes and problems common to various Member States. Toys, for the reasons given by the Honourable Member, clearly fall within the scope of these themes.

2. A contribution from the Commission may be obtained on presentation, by a European cooperation network consisting of partners from at least three countries eligible under the Raphael programme, of a project for the study of the common problem evoked and the development of a common methodology for innovative interventions which will serve as an example at a European scale and a case study. The closing date for presenting projects is 26 March 1999.

(1) OJ C 342, 10.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/98

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Time taken to reimburse costs incurred in Socrates projects

According to several reports from sponsors of Socrates projects in Germany, it can take more than a year for costs to be reimbursed. As the money concerned initially has to be found by the project sponsors, this long time lag means a heavy financial burden, which may cause smaller sponsors particular difficulty.

How does the Commission intend to speed up the processing of the settlement procedures for Socrates projects so that smaller project sponsors are not placed at a disadvantage?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 1999)

The rules on implementation of the Socrates programme do not require the coordinator to bear the total cost of a project while awaiting transfer of the Commission's grant.

On the contrary, because the Commission does not wish the cost of Socrates projects to constitute an excessive financial burden on beneficiaries, particularly small organisations, it transfers substantial advance payments (amounting to at least 80 %) once a project is up and running. This means that only the balance of the grant has to be transferred at the end of the project, on presentation of evidence of the expenditure incurred.

Payment of the balance follows an assessment of the final activity reports and accounts relating to the project. The Commission takes care to analyse these documents promptly, once they are submitted by the project coordinator, so that the balance can be paid forthwith. A delay as long as that referred to by the Honourable Member constitutes an exception, which can only be a result of special difficulties peculiar to the projects concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3135/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Improper tender for the organisation of water services in Ivrea

On 1 June 1998 Ivrea (Turin) town council discussed setting up a joint company to manage all the public services of water abstraction, conduction and distribution for domestic purposes, sewage and waste water treatment. To set up this mainly public company, firms were invited in accordance with private negotiation procedures. These however are public works and initial estimates are 20 billion lire.

1. Is the Commission aware of this?

2. Since this is a mainly public privatisation and given the tasks of setting up the company, do the rules used for setting up the company comply with Community directives on public contracts?

3. If not, what are the procedures for restoring legal sovereignty?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to check compliance with Community legislation on public contracts in the case of the procedure referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3672/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Financing agreements with the Czech Republic

On the occasion of his visit to the Czech Republic in early October Commissioner van den Broek signed three financing agreements with the Czech Finance Minister, Mr Svoboda, involving payments of ECU 36,9 million to the Czech Republic from PHARE funds. ECU 4,8 million is to be spent on strengthening the external frontiers of the EU.

Can the Council amswer the following questions:

1. What specific projects will be covered by the ECU 4,8 million?

2. Will the sum also be used to build reception camps on Germany's and Austria's current external frontiers?

3. Are the payments linked to tangible progress in the fight against the evil of trafficking in illegal immigrants?

4. What is the substance of the other agreements concerning cross-border cooperation between the Czech Republic and Germany (ECU 7 million) and Austria (ECU 2,9 million)?

5. Why did the Commission sign these two agreements?

Reply

(9 March 1999)

The Council is unable to reply to the Honourable Member's questions, which are a matter for the Commission in the context of the implementation of the PHARE programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3766/98 by Susan WADDINGTON to the Commission. Treatment of citizens during border controls



Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0126



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/98 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (11 December 1998) Subject: Treatment of citizens during border controls What measures is the Union taking to ensure that the Member States' authorities responsible for border controls respect the rights and dignity of women when identity checks, interviews, body searches and other related activities are being carried out?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) and Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: M62 Liverpool - Hull corridor

Does the Commission agree that the M62 corridor is a trans-European link of importance not only to Northern England but also to Ireland, with the bulk of Irish trade with continental Europe using this route?

Is the Commission aware of the 7 km gap between the end of the M62 and Liverpool docks which is the only non-motorway section and where lorries must make their way through the urban streets of Liverpool or Sefton in order to access this dock?

Has the Commission been informed of the proposal to convert the disused railway tunnel from Edge Hill to Waterloo Dock into a road tunnel at relatively low cost, which would be a wonderfully simple solution to this problem?

Would such a budget be eligible for assistance from the EU under the TEN's budget or under the ERDF?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Community has recognised the importance of the M62 corridor as a trans-European link, by including it in the guidelines for the development of the transport Trans-European Networks (Decision No 1692/96/EC). Any projects to develop the corridor as a TENs route would in principle be eligible for support from the Community under the TENs framework. Under the terms of the EC Treaty bids for TENs funds have to be submitted by, or with the support of, the government of the Member State concerned. No such bid has been made in relation to the M62 extension.

The development of motorway infrastructure is not defined as eligible activity under the objective 1 single planning document for Merseyside 1994-1999. Extension of the M62 into the Liverpool area is not therefore currently eligible for European regional development fund support. The Commission has been made aware informally of a proposal to convert a disused railway tunnel to road use for traffic between Liverpool docks and the M62 motorway, but has not seen any detailed plans for such a project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/98

by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: VAT on golf-club membership

Will the Commission state whether VAT may legally be charged in Spain on membership of sporting organisations such as golf clubs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

According to Article 13(A)(1)(m) of the 6th VAT Directive 77/388/EEC(1), Member States exempt certain services closely linked to sport or physical education supplied by non-profitmaking organisations to people taking part in sport or physical education.

New Spanish legislation, in force since 1 January 1999, applies a general exemption for sports activities under the conditions laid down by the 6th Directive. Consequently, membership of sporting organisations, such as golf clubs, fulfilling these conditions, is exempt from VAT in Spain.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2896/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) and Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Checks on missing baggage and compensation arrangements

As a result of the present-day density of air traffic and the condition of airport facilities throughout the Community, the problem of lost and missing passenger baggage has worsened substantially in recent months.

This circumstance is compounded by the problems caused not only for regular passenger flights but for the increasing number of travellers who use this means of transport for tourist purposes.

The harm done to the consumer is not offset by compensation at a sufficiently generous level to compensate for the material loss. The compensation offered is often a derisory flat-rate sum falling far short of the value of the objects lost.

What is the Commission's position concerning the compensation arrangements for lost baggage practised by the various airlines in the EU? Does it consider the levels concerned to be sufficient to offset the value of the travellers' lost possessions?

Does the Commission not consider that the existing minimum compensation levels should be reviewed, both for lost baggage and for delays in returning baggage?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of introducing, in the interests of consumer protection, legislation laying down a minimum level of compensation for travellers in case of loss of baggage or delays in returning baggage, set so as to guarantee that the traveller's minimum subsistence expenses would be met?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-2163/98 by Mr Ian White(1).

(1) See page 4.