ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2478/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Natura 2000

1. Has the Commission discussed how to cooperate between DGs in order to use structural funds and the CAP to finance management plans and protection of important sites?

2. One of the main problems of the CEECs joining the EU is how to protect their natural heritage from being destroyed. How far have the applicant countries come in the process of transposing and implementing the Habitat directive and Natura 2000? When they join the Union, the PHARE programme (which currently finances transposition and implementation) ceases to exist. How will the Commission ensure that enough resources are made available for these countries to continue the process after they have joined?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1997)

1. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )), known as the Habitats Directive, requires the Member States to indicate to the Commission the amounts they consider necessary for conserving the priority natural habitats and priority species on Natura 2000 sites. To date no Member State has forwarded this estimate, which is indispensable for adopting the action framework for Community co-financing.

However, the Commission has already had preparatory contacts to determine the extent to which Natura 2000 could be incorporated into existing financial instruments, which already in fact include many agro-environmental measures, including for the protection of areas of outstanding natural interest.

2. Following the applications for accession to the Community from 10 countries of central and eastern Europe, the Commission is closely monitoring the approximation of those countries' legislation to that of the Community, including the nature protection legislation included in the environmental 'acquis'. The Commission's opinion ((Doc. COM(97) 2001 to 2003. )) contains an assessment of the associated countries' position with regard to the acquis. In most of these countries there is a long tradition of nature protection and there has been good progress in adopting legislation to implement Directive 92/43/EEC.

In the communication 'Agenda 2000: For a stronger and wider Union' ((Doc. COM(97) 2000. )), which it has also just presented, the Commission proposes a bolstering of pre-accession aid from 2000 onwards, including - in addition to PHARE - an agricultural development component and a structural component. Once they accede, the new Member States will be eligible for various Community financial instruments capable of assisting action to protect their natural heritage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/97 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Freedom of movement

Following the European Court judgment in the Antonissen case, Commissioner Monti informed me in the answer to Written Question E-0060/97 ((OJ C 186, 18.6.1997, p. 217. )) that the Commission considers at least six months as a reasonable time to allow a European citizen to seek work in a Member State other than his own.

Why, then is the export of unemployment benefits limited to up to three months when an unemployed person goes to look for work in another Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2873/97 and E-2875/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1997)

The social security systems of the Member States are coordinated by Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and 574/72 ((Updated by Regulation (EEC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997) lastly amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1290/97 (OJ L 176, 1.7.1997). )). These Regulations foresee the right to export certain social security benefits to people residing in another Member State. It must be noted, however, that under Article 69 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 the right to export unemployment benefits is limited to a period of three months and only if the aim is to look for a new job in another Member State.

This system has been upheld by the Court of justice on the grounds that entitlement to unemployment benefits is linked to availability for work and that the beneficiary should be available for work in the competent Member State. In attaching conditions to the facilities granted to the unemployed who are actively seeking work, the Community legislature has made correct use of its discretionary powers in respect of the implementation of freedom of movement of workers ((Judgment of 8.4.1992, Case C-62/91, Gray, ECJ law reports, 1992, I-2737. )).

However, the Commission is of the opinion that the period of three months should be extended, taking into consideration that as a result of the situation of the employment market, a much longer time is needed to find a job. Therefore, it already proposed in 1980 to extend this period ((OJ C 189, 9.7.1980 )). This proposal has been re-tabled under an amended version in January 1996 ((OJ C 68, 6.3.1996 )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3026/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The Economic and Social Committee accepts the Commission's proposal to use economic instruments, put forward in its green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), but opposes the introduction of fiscal measures to 'punish' those responsible for noise pollution or provide a source of revenue for the government.

Will the Commission ensure that the use of economic instruments is not a substitute for setting limit values for noise emissions?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2569/97 by Glyn FORD to the Council. Asylum protocol



Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0060



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/97 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council (28 July 1997) Subject: Asylum protocol Would the protocol which restricts EU citizen's access to apply for asylum in other EU countries, adopted at the Amsterdam Summit, be suspended if a Member State's respect for human rights was brought into question? Joint answer to Written Questions E-2568/97 and E-2569/97 (7 November 1997) The Council considers it inappropriate at this stage to interpret the protocol in question, given that the Treaty of which the protocol forms part has not yet entered into force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/97 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 September 1997)

Subject: Freedom of movement

What progress has been registered with respect to the European Social Fund's aim 'to render the employment of workers easier and to increase their geographical and occupational mobility within the Community ...', especially with respect to long-term unemployed people, and facilitating the integration into working life of young people and of persons exposed to exclusion from the labour market?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1997)

The broad aims of the European social fund (ESF) set out in Article 123 of the EC Treaty and quoted by the Honourable Member have been defined by the Council in Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4255/88 ('the ESF Regulation') ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). This Regulation sets out in Article 1 the operations which the ESF 'shall support', including as regards objective 3, facilitating the occupational integration of the long-term unemployed and of young people, promoting the integration of those exposed to exclusion from the labour market, promoting equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market, and as regards objective 4 facilitating the adaptation of workers, especially those threatened with unemployment, to industrial change and to changes in production systems.

Progress in achieving the above aims is recorded annually in the reports on the structural funds, of which the 7th annual report on the structural funds in 1995 ((COM(96) 502 final. )) was published in September 1996. Further details about the operations of the ESF, and as to the integration of its operations with the generality of structural fund operations, may be found in the first report on Economic and social cohesion ((COM(96) 542. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/97 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Council (5 May 1997)

Subject: Planned abolition of duty-free sales in the European Union on 30 June 1999

The entry into force of the White Paper on the common internal market in January 1993 should have led to the abolition of duty-free sales at that time, but for economic and employment policy reasons the Council felt obliged to retain duty-free sales until 30 June 1999 to enable those concerned to adapt to the new conditions. In the meantime it is evident that the employment situation throughout the EU has deteriorated to such an extent that this change to the new conditions has not occurred, or only in very isolated instances. Nor is there likely to be any radical improvement in the situation by 30 June 1999.

1. What specific action is the Council taking to counteract the adverse effects of the abolition of duty-free sales (unemployment, losses of tax revenue)?

2. Is any attempt being made in the Council to extend the deadline again, not least in view of the argument that, with 15 different tax systems in the Member States, a common internal market still does not exist?

3. Are there any Council opinions on the predicted adverse effects of the abolition of duty-free sales?

Answer (6 August 1997)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member in his question, the Council decided when it adopted the directives establishing the abolition of fiscal frontiers from 1 January 1993 to put an end to duty-free sales in intra-Community passenger traffic with effect from 30 June 1999.

The reason for this measure lies in the incompatibility of such sales with the existence of a frontier-free internal market.

The circulation between two Member States of goods bought by individuals for personal use no longer has consequences from the point of view of fiscal legislation. Thus individuals may buy goods for personal use in any Member State and bring such goods into any other Member State without need either to declare them or to pay duty at the border. This being so, the application of duty-free allowances is no longer justified. It should be pointed out that duty-free sales to travellers leaving the Community are to continue.

The Council's reason for temporarily extending duty-free to intra-Community travellers until 30 June 1999 was to alleviate social and regional difficulties which might have resulted from their sudden abolition. The intention was to give sufficient time to the sectors concerned (airport suthorities, airlines, ferry companies, producers of goods normally sold in duty-free shops and operators of the shops) to prepare for the disappearance of intra-Community duty-free sales.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Photovoltaic energy/Full Cost Rate system

In his answer on behalf of the Commission to Question E-1359/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 47. )) on 20 June 1997, Mr Papoutsis said the differences in cost between conventional and renewable energy were the main obstacle to the introduction of renewable energies into the market. These differences must be evened out. To this end, in a transitional phase, renewable energies need to be put on an equal footing with conventional energies by means of market aids. The best instrument for this is the Full Cost Rate system used in many towns in Germany for network access for electricity from renewable energies.

1. From which German towns and which organizations has the Commission obtained reports of experience with Full Cost Rate systems, as called for by Parliament on 4 July 1996 in paragraph 19 of its resolution on a Community action plan for renewable energy sources (A4-0188/96) ((OJ C 211, 22.7.1996, p. 27. ))?

2. What results have been achieved with Full Cost Rate systems?

3. What is the Commission's assessment of these results?

4. What rules does the Commission propose for payment for renewable energy input in order to speed up its introduction into the market?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997)

As stated in its Green Paper on renewable energy sources ((Doc. COM(96) 576. )), the Commission is preparing a White Paper on a Community strategy for renewable energy sources extending to the year 2010, together with a plan of action.

Against this background the Commission is contemplating a proposal on access to the supply grid for electricity generated by renewable energy sources, and on payment for this. However, systems other than that adopted by several German cities may be considered.

With this in view the Commission is analysing the experiments conducted in the Member States in order, at the appropriate time, to draw up proposals at Community level.

Concurrently with the proposal on network access the Commission is analysing the treatment of renewable energy sources as part of the transposition of Directive 96/92/EEC on the internal electricity market ((OJ L 27, 30.1.1997. )).

In addition the Commission feels that the cost of renewable energy sources is not the only barrier to their market acceptance. It therefore intends to put forward measures to apply to differing areas such as standardisation, research, demonstration, dissemination, local and regional planning, taxation, institutional and commercial funding, promotion, information and training.

The Commission feels that, in order to guarantee renewable energy sources a wider market in the medium and long term, the support for the development of these must be well targeted and consume little time in order to boost their use and competitiveness during the transitional stage referred to by the Honourable Member.

Indeed, the cost may vary enormously as a function (a) of the technologies used and (b) of the specific conditions and in particular those such as location and infrastructure density.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2684/97 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Concentration of ozone in the east of Spain

In the province of Castellón in the Valencinian community, a Commission-sponsored study entitled 'Proyecto Bema' is analysing air pollution in the area.

The concentration of ozone in the troposphere is excessive, and according to the experts of the Mediterranean Environmental Studies Centre (MESC) this is due to refineries and the major increase in the number of motor vehicles in recent years. The situation is causing respiratory illnesses and severe damage to crops. The scientists are warning that the oxidizing effect of the ozone has already caused the disappearance of Mediterranean seeds, and if steps are not taken to reduce ozone levels, they will exceed the level which can be tolerated by living creatures within 20 years.

The Mediterranean basin is considered to be a particularly threatened area.

1. Apart from the assessment studies being carried out, has the Commission taken any emergency measures to prevent the current situation from deteriorating any further?

2. Is the Commission aware of any failure to comply with Council Directive 84/360/EEC ((OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20. )) of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants?

3. How might the Commission approach the Spanish authorities with a view to ensuring that Community environmental legislation is complied with and that Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )) on waste and Directive 84/360/EEC aforementioned are implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 October 1997)

1. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Members that the Mediterranean basin is a very sensitive area. However, the Commission has taken no emergency measures concerning tropospheric ozone in the province of Castellón in Spain.

2. The Commission is not aware of any breach of Council Directive 84/360/EEC committed by Spain.

3. The Commission is not aware of any problem with the implementation of Directive 84/360/EEC in Spain. However, pursuant to an infringement procedure brought by the Commission the Court of justice condemned Spain on 5 June 1997 for non-communication of the national measures implementing Directive 91/156/EEC.

Subsequently, the Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities concerning the measures adopted in order to comply with the ruling of the Court. The Spanish authorities have replied to the Commission that a 'Anteproyecto de Ley de Residuos' has been approved by the council of ministers and that the draft law is expected to be adopted before the end of the year, thus complying with the ruling of the Court and with the obligations laid down in Directive 91/156/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2583/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (29 July 1997)

Subject: Food aid

How far does the Commission intend to utilize part of the beef intervention stocks for food aid in the form of tinned food, and how does it justify a failure to respond to requests to this effect from aid organizations involved and countries in extreme need, while at the same time maintaining that there are no outlets for the beef intervention stocks?

Calculations also reveal that tinned meat can be made available in a way that is central in budgetary terms, in contrast to the conventional intervention procedure for beef and veal.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 on food-aid policy and food-aid management and special operations in support of food security ((OJ L 166, 5.7.1996. )) states that food aid products must reflect as closely as possible the dietary habits of the recipient population. The choice of products is therefore determined by need and not by availability.

The products supplied as Community food aid, for which the Commission is responsible, are normally those requested by the country in question or the organisation through which the aid is routed. Tinned beef is rarely asked for and over the last two years less than 400 tonnes has been supplied. The Commission was recently asked to supply tinned beef or pork for use in North Korea but the conclusion from assessments on the spot by both the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Commission was that these products were not the most appropriate to the primary needs of this famine-affected country. On 23 May 1997 the Commission announced significant emergency aid to the people of North Korea. Part of this is some 155 000 tonnes of food aid, to be delivered in close collaboration with the WFP, mainly in the form of cereal products, and part is a nutritional and public health programme. The total value of the aid is ECU 55.8 million.

The Commission has no up-to-date calculations showing that provision of tinned beef is less costly than the conventional intervention procedure. In any case the supply of products as food aid for the sole reason that they are in surplus and in intervention storage runs counter to the thinking behind the abovementioned Regulation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The Commission's proposal to draw up a framework directive on measuring and assessing exposure to noise, set out in its green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), is welcome; however, its announcement that it will establish the target values and measures to enforce them 'for a later stage' is disappointing.

On the basis of the principle of prevention, these target values are needed for the priority area of noise abatement and the Commission is therefore asked not to delay in defining them.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)

The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.

Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.