ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flood relief in China

Can the Commission state whether any EU aid was offered to the People's Republic of China following the recent disaster caused by flooding?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

By an emergency decision adopted on 6 August 1998, the Commission allocated an amount of ECU 605 000 to two relief projects which are implemented by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Médecins sans frontières (MSF) Holland. These projects, which target some of the worst affected areas in Central and Southern China, are supposed to respond to the most urgent needs of the flood victims in the fields of food, water and temporary shelter.

A second emergency decision for an amount of ECU 1 050 000 was adopted on 4 September 1998. This project, with objectives like the two above-mentioned operations, is also implemented by the International Federation of the Red Cross.

Given the size of the present flood disaster, the Commission is continuing to monitor the evolution of the situation closely with a view to possible allocation of additional assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2686/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Drugs strategy

The Cardiff Summit adopted a report on operations to combat drug abuse, including a drugs strategy for 1999 and subsequent years, and the Council and Commission were called upon to devise a blueprint for further action.

1. How will the current Presidency answer the above call?

2. What specific proposals does it intend to submit, and what progress has it already made in drawing them up?

3. An international conference on drugs will take place in Vienna on 5 and 6 November 1998. Who will represent the Union at the conference?

4. What attitude will the representatives take?

5. How will policy be worked out, and what role will Parliament play in that procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 1998)

The Commission is in the process of preparing a communication to the Council and the Parliament on a Union action plan to combat drugs for the years 2000-2004, as a follow-up to the Cardiff European Council conclusion. Preparatory work is building on the key elements for a post 1999 drugs strategy which were endorsed at Cardiff.

The conference on "drug prevention and drug policy" which will be organised on 5-6 November 1998 in Vienna will be the flagship event of the European drug prevention week (16-22 November 1998). Organised by the city of Vienna in co-operation with the Commission and the United nations international drug control programme, the conference will mainly focus on the future challenge of an integrated and interdisciplinary drug prevention policy. The conference will be able to count on a very broad range of expertise. The Commission and the Parliament will in particular be represented. The Parliament is invited to chair one of the sessions.

As far as the participants from the Commission are concerned, they will mainly present current activities, in particular the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence, 1996-2000 (decision 102/97/EC of the Parliament and the Council)(1) which identifies the European drug prevention week as one of its 16 priorities.

(1) OJ L 19, 22.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

Several years ago the French nature conservation organization SEPANSO submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning the massive capture of songbirds and migratory birds in the French department of Les Landes. The complaint is being dealt with by the Commission under the reference number 213/91.

What progress has been made on this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

In 1993 the Commission closed the file on complaint No 91/213 concerning the hunting in France of the ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana), though it continued to address the problem of French law failing to provide satisfactory protection for the species.

Accordingly, on 24 June 1998 the Commission decided, on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in view of France's failure to comply with the judgment of 24 April 1988 (Commission v. France, C-252/85).

The Commission's decision was based on the fact that French regulations on the protection of wild bird species still does not indicate correctly all the prohibitions imposed by Article 5(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.(1) Moreover, the same regulations also fail to indicate all the bird species to be protected under Article 5 of the Directive, including the ortolan bunting.

The complainant has been informed of the Commission's decision.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) and James Janssen van Raay (UPE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Trinidad & Tobago's refusal with regard to the Vienna Convention

1. Is the Commission aware of the Trinidad & Tobago Government's refusal to comply with the Netherlands Government's request to arrest and deport, under Article 6 of the Vienna Convention, the former Surinamese dictator and current government adviser Desi Bouterse, who is suspected of large-scale international drug trafficking?

2. What political action will the Commission take as a result of Trinidad & Tobago's refusal to arrest and deport, under the international Vienna Convention, the former Surinamese dictator and current government adviser Desi Bouterse, who is suspected of large-scale international drug trafficking?

3. What economic sanctions will be proposed by the Commission against Trinidad & Tobago as a result of Trinidad & Tobago's refusal to arrest and deport, under Article 6 of the international Vienna Convention, the former Surinamese dictator and current government adviser Desi Bouterse, who is suspected of large-scale international drug trafficking?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of the decision of the government of Trinidad and Tobago not to accede to the Dutch government's recent request for the arrest and extradition of Mr Bouterse, who is wanted on international drugs trafficking charges. The Commission regrets that the Trinidadian authorities have chosen not to apply the provisions of Article 6 of the Vienna Convention in this case.

Apparently the Trinidad and Tobago government considers that the United Nations Treaty does not provide the basis for individual extradition demands, and that such demands must be covered by an additional bilateral treaty. The Commission has been informed that the Dutch government, while not accepting this interpretation, is nevertheless in the process of finalising an individual extradition treaty with Trinidad and Tobago with the aim of avoiding this difficulty in the future.

The Commission hopes that this outcome will enable the Trinidad and Tobago Government to exercise its responsibilities in this matter more convincingly. The Commission does not consider that a proposal to introduce sanctions would be appropriate in present circumstances, but will continue to monitor the situation closely, in cooperation with Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2348/98

by James Moorhouse (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Situation in Nigeria

Following the political upheavals in Nigeria, what attitude does the Commission intend to adopt in its future relations with the new government?

Does the Commission take the view that the regime's initial relaxation of restrictions shows a genuine will to reform? If so. what measures does the Commission intend to put into effect to encourage them?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1998)

The Commission is following developments in Nigeria very closely. After a long period of deteriorating economic and political conditions, including an increasing level of violations of human rights, the new head of State, General Abubakar, has made a number of declarations expressing a clear will to return to democratic and civilian rule. Moreover, he has released a number of political prisoners.

These developments have been widely regarded as promising. The international community, including the Union, has therefore welcomed the declarations and the release of prisoners and has concluded that a window of opportunity is at hand. The Union has reiterated the importance of civilian rule and the release of all remaining political prisoners. It has also showed willingness for a closer dialogue with the Nigerian authorities.

The Commission fully shares the view that there is a political momentum at hand. This positive view has been confirmed by the fact that the Nigerian authorities have pursued the reforms during the months of August and September. A time-table for local, state, legislative and presidential elections has been presented including a plan for registration of new parties.

The Commission is willing to assist the Nigerian authorities in rebuilding civil society and civil institutions in Nigeria, and is presently discussing possibilities to support the elections. The Commission, together with the Member States, is in favour of an intensified dialogue with the Nigerian authorities, a dialogue which could also include Nigeria's future role in the framework of the Lomé Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2375/98

by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Exploitation of single travellers

Having already felt the need to establish a support group - STAG - Single Travellers Action Group - which already has a membership of 4 000, a constituent of mine has written to express concern that the issue of single travellers is still very much ignored. Single travellers continue to be exploited by travel companies charging higher prices for single travellers, for example, and national consumer groups do not appear to offer any protection.

Bearing in mind the increasing number of people living alone, does the Commission envisage submitting any proposals to prevent these inequalities from occurring and thus protect the single traveller on a European level? What degree of protection does Europe currently offer?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 1998)

Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours(1), aims to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community. The directive is designed to protect consumers who buy package travel in the Community.

Article 2.4 of the Directive defines the consumer as the person who takes or agrees to take the package ("the principal contractor"), or any person on whose behalf the principal contractor agrees to purchase the package ("the other beneficiaries") or any person to whom the principal contractor or any of the other beneficiaries transfers the package ("the transferee"). Therefore the Community text does not make any distinction between travellers, single or not, and its provisions apply to all of them.

In the absence of more detailed information about possible inequalities, the Commission does not see in which way single travellers are disadvantaged. Generally speaking a higher price for single travellers is one of those principles accepted by the mechanisms of the market, because single travellers cause higher accommodation and travelling costs and this has an obvious repercussion in prices.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/98

by Stelios Argyros (PPE) and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Arbitrary treatment of Greek consumers by EYDAP

"Citizens' Defence", a civic non-profit-making organization whose objective is to protect the general public from arbitrary government measures, claims that EYDAP (the Athens water supply and sewerage company) is charging Greek consumers a sum for replacing water meters which is more than twice the cost of supplying the meters. Well-founded suspicions have been aroused, therefore, that the company is making an unjustifiably large profit. Under the terms of the contract for the work, which was awarded to the lowest tenderer, the cost of manufacturing and installing the meters was DRS 4 774 each, whereas EYDAP is charging consumers DRS 10 000 + 18 % VAT, a total of DRS 11 800 to replace them. However, under the terms of a Ministerial Decision of 1992, EYDAP is only entitled to charge a fee equal to the cost of supplying, installing and guaranteeing the use of the meters and is not allowed to make a profit.

In the light of the above, does the Commission consider that EYDAP's actions constitute abuse or exploitation of a dominant position? Are its actions consistent with Community law and what does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

As to its compatibility with Community law, the case referred to does not affect trade between Member States and so is caught not by Community law but by the domestic law of the Member State concerned.

That said, the Commission is unable to establish on the basis of the particulars provided by the Honourable Member whether there is abuse of a dominant position on the market served by EYDAP.

Generally speaking, the profit margin of a company selling and installing equipment must cover general and specific costs in such a way as to provide it with a net profit. In the case at issue, the incidence of those costs has not been communicated by the Honourable Member. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the profit that EYDAP may have made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/98

by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in the enforcement of the Linking Act in the Netherlands

The Linking Act (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 1998, 203) has been in force in the Netherlands since 1 July 1998. Although the Netherlands recognizes that beneficiary EU citizens derive their right of residence directly from European law, EU citizens must present a residence document or registration sticker if they wish to gain access to the basic municipal register. Registration in the basic municipal register is necessary if access is to be gained to Dutch administrative bodies. These requirements are set out in the instructions of 28 April 1998 issued by the head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service to the chief constables.

1. Is the Commission aware of this Act and these instructions?

2. Does the Commission believe that this Act and its enforcement by means of the instructions that have been issued may constitute prohibited discrimination against EU citizens within the meaning of Article 6 of the EC Treaty?

3. Does the Commission also believe that the documentation required of EU citizens as a result of this Act or the implications of this requirement are inconsistent with the free movement of workers within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68(1)?

4. If so, what action does the Commission plan to take?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/98

by Monica Baldi (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Schengen Agreement and airport safety

In view of the Schengen Agreement and the abolition of systematic customs checks within the Single Market, how does the Commission consider that an adequate level of safety for citizens at airports can be ensured, especially with reduced staffing levels and high volumes of traffic, as at Florence airport?

Can the Commission check or take steps to ensure that the applicable safety regulations are being complied with?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission has always taken the view that the abolition of controls on persons and goods at internal frontiers as provided for by Article 7a of the EC Treaty concerns only the elimination of frontier controls, in other words controls which are carried out in connection with or on the occasion of the crossing of an internal frontier. On the other hand, checks carried out by Member States or by carriers during embarkation on aircraft or ships with a view to ensuring the safety and security of individuals and property during transport should not be affected by the creation of an area without internal frontiers. Such checks are carried out at airports regardless of whether the flight is domestic, intra-Community or international.

Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3925/91 of 19 December 1991 concerning the elimination of controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Community flight and the baggage of persons making an intra-Community sea crossing(1) thus provides that "this Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the safety and security checks carried out on baggage by the authorities of the Member States, port or airport authorities or carriers". In its proposal for a Council Directive on the elimination of controls on persons crossing internal frontiers(2), the Commission has followed the same approach.

The Commission does not have any evidence suggesting that the creation of a frontier-free area has led to lower standards of safety and security in air or sea transport.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991.

(2) OJ C 289, 31.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Cohesion and Structural Funds payments to Ireland

Can the Commission state how much EU finance is to be paid to Ireland under the current six-year programme under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and how much of this money had actually been paid by 1 January 1998?

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

(24 September 1998)

Direct structural fund support for Ireland is based on the Community support framework 1994-1999, backed up by a series of Community initiatives for the same period. These sources of finance should provide a total of ECU 5 900 million, of which ECU 3 250 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.

In addition, Ireland will benefit during this period from a further ECU 250 million being made available under the Peace and Interreg Community initiatives which it jointly manages with the United Kingdom. Under these programmes a global contribution of nearly ECU 550 million in Community support was foreseen, of which ECU 171 million had been paid by 31 December 1997.

Ireland's share of the Cohesion fund will be between 7 % and 10 % of the total budget allocation over the period 1993-1999. This share is estimated to be between ECU 1 167 million and ECU 1 668 million. On 31 December 1997, payments totalled ECU 698,5 million.

The Commission recalls that its payments in respect of interventions for the current programming period may, in general, continue to be made up to the end of 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1447/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Community funding of hydraulic projects in Spain

In reply to my Question E-0457/98(1), Mrs Wulf-Mathies stated that:

1. As far as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is concerned, there is no project in Spain which in terms of its size and nature is equivalent or comparable to the Alqueva project. Similarly, no project of this scale and type has been financed under the Cohesion Fund.

2. The conditions which were applied to the co-financing of the Alqueva project derived from its exceptional scale (more than ECU 300 million of Community funds) which raised special problems in terms of environmental protection, water supplies, economic development and coordination of monitoring measures.'

However, it is important to look at the actual facts and figures. In the case of the Alqueva project, the ERDF will contribute, in 1997 prices, only ECU 96.6 million. The remainder of the funds will be covered by the Cohesion Fund, the ESF and the EAGGF Guidance Section. To compare with corresponding values in Spain, where funding is also provided by the Cohesion Fund for hydrographic basins, we need to refer to the ERDF. The Regional Development Fund is to provide funding for the Spanish hydrological plan over the same period (Community Support Framework) amounting to ESC 260 billion, i.e. thirteen times more than the amount available to the Alqueva project.

As the Commission must be aware, the fact that a programme or project (such as the Spanish hydrological plan which, according to all the evidence, includes a large number of dams and "transfusion points" funded by the ERDF and situated in international rivers, such as the Guadiana) is divided up does not mean that it should not be treated as a global entity, especially if one takes account of the single nature of the contributions to the same project.

How can the Commission therefore assert that no Spanish project of the same scale as the Alqueva project has been funded? And how can it be impartial when it maintains that only the Alqueva project required special monitoring conditions to be laid down for co-funding?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2417/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Lindane

In its reply to Question E-2860/97(1), the Commission said it was expecting a report from Austria in the middle of 1998. Has this yet been received, will the Commission make it available to interested members and, bearing in mind public concern, how long will its extensive scientific and technical examination with the Member States take to complete?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The Commission has not yet received the report for the active substance lindane. The Commission is aware of the concerns regarding this active substance. In the absence of the report, it is not possible, at this moment, to predict with accuracy the time needed to complete the Community's scientific and technical examination. It may be expected that upon receipt of the report it can be programmed into the evaluation system without any undue delay.

It is not the practice to release reports for circulation to interested parties prior to the completion of the detailed scientific and technical examination by the other Member States, the Commission as well as the scientific committee for plants.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 84.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council

(18 September 1998)

Subject: Gender mainstreaming at meetings of the Council

1. How is the Commission's principle of gender mainstreaming implemented at meetings of the Council?

2. Do the Ministers for Women's Affairs or their nominated representatives attend the meetings of the different Councils (transport, energy, etc.)?

3. If not, why not, or is gender mainstreaming just so much waste paper?

Reply

(20/21 December 1998)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that under the first paragraph of Article 146 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the corresponding Articles in the other Treaties, the Council consists of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State. Within each Government, women holding the offices corresponding to the particular Council meeting do, of course, attend.

The representatives of the Member States may moreover raise questions concerning gender mainstreaming policy at any time on the occasion of discussions by the Council and its preparatory bodies.

Finally, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that Article 3 of the EC Treaty as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty provides that in all the Community's activities, it will aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women.