ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/97 by Ole Krarup (I-EDN) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: EU economic development and structural funding

According to the report by Parliament's Committee on Budgets on the financing of the enlargement of the European Union (A4-0353/96, Parts A and B), the Commission expects growth to average 2.5% per annum over the 1999-2006 period. The Commission believes such growth will enable the EU to continue to pursue its structural policies, including in the new Member States.

What does the Commission intend to do in the event of growth in the EU not being as high as expected and the resources available for the Structural Funds therefore being lower than anticipated? It should be recalled that Eurostat (in its 1996 report) puts the average rate of growth in the fifteen Member States for the 1989-94 period at 1.9% per annum.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 November 1197)

The financial framework presented in Agenda 2000 is indeed based on an assumption of average growth of real Community gross domestic product (GDP) of 2.5 % per annum. Average growth for the years 1994-1996, which were in general not regarded as boom years, amounted to 2.4 %. The forecast is thus only marginally above that level and is in the Commission's view realistic.

The most recent Commission forecasts even expect growth rates to exceed this level for both 1997 and 1998 (2.6 % and 3.0 % respectively).

If growth fell short of the forecast level, it should be kept in mind that the proposed financial framework does not foresee a full utilisation of the threshold of 1.27 %. For example, the ceiling of expenditure envisaged for 2006 would only reach a level of 1.22 % of GDP. So, even if growth were lower than expected or if additional needs arose in the context of enlargement, they could be met within the proposed ceiling.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council (2 October 1997)

Subject: Admission to the occupation of road haulage operator

This question concerns the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations (COM(97) 25 final - 97/0029 SYN) ((OJ C 95, 24.3.1997, p. 66. )).

The proposal is designed to continue the process of harmonizing the requirements for admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and strengthen the road transport market.

Attention should be drawn to the growing involvement of haulage operators in bilateral commerce concerning goods and passengers between the Member States and the CEECs. In a spirit of harmonization, an objective which continues to be pursued in the EU, and in order to avoid practices which may lead to distortions of competition and promote equal conditions for all, can the Council examine, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of extending the influence of the Directive to road haulage operators in the CEECs involved in bilateral commerce with the Member States?

Answer (15 January 1998)

During discussions held with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe within the structured dialogue set up to prepare those countries for accession to the Community, the Council emphasized the need for them to prepare themselves actively for taking on the 'acquis communautaire' in all its aspects (technical, social, safety and others).

With particular regard to Directive 96/26/EC to which the Honourable Member refers, eight associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe have notified the Commission of their intention to bring their legislation into line with that Directive on 1 January 1998 ((See reply given by the Commission on 17 November 1997 to Mr AMADEO's Written Question No E-3076/97. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Exceeding milk quotas

A number of Italian newspapers carried prominent reports on 30 August 1997 of statements made in a report produced by the Italian Court of Auditors in October 1995 concerning the complex matter of milk quotas. It would appear from this report that Italy has paid fines for exceeding its milk quotas which were not justified by the amount actually produced.

1. Is the Commission aware of the contents of this document?

2. Can the Commission confirm the claim that Italy paid LIT 2 207 billion in unwarranted fines for the period 1989-1993?

3. Can the Commission confirm that Italy's milk production only meets 60% of national demand?

4. In the light of this information, what point has been reached in the dispute between Italy and the EU in the milk sector?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1997)

The Commission is not aware of the analysis by the Italian Court of Auditors to which the Honourable Member refers.

It should be remembered that Italy did not apply the milk-quota scheme correctly before 1993-94. In particular, individual reference quantities were not allotted and the data on deliveries to purchasers came not from the purchasers' statements but from national statistics or from the producers' associations. The consequences of this incorrect application of the scheme were drawn in the context of the clearance of accounts and quantified on the basis of the joint conclusions of the Council and the Commission of 21 October 1994. Italy must pay the Community an additional levy of about LIT 3 461.5 billion (ECU 1 715.2 million) for the 1989 to 1993 financial years. It has already paid 90.5% of this amount. Italy did not dispute the corrections imposed under the clearance of accounts and the Commission has no information which might call into question the financial consequences drawn.

The Commission does not have all the data needed to determine Italy's exact degree of self-sufficiency, such as consumption and commercial trade in milk products or even accurate and reliable production figures. This being said, quotas were fixed not with reference to the degree of self-sufficiency of each Member State but on the basis of existing production in each Member State. If any other criterion had been used, particularly the national population or consumption, either it would have been impossible to reach an agreement on the scheme, or the overall quantity for the Community would have been fixed at far too high a level.

Since the information given above has never been questioned, there is no dispute on this matter between Italy and the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/97 by Valerio Baldini (UPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Starling hunting in Italy

Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )) on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 94/24/EEC ((OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 9. )), authorizes the hunting of starlings only in France, Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Can the Commission explain why Italy does not enjoy similar treatment and must content itself with the possibility provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC of resorting to an application for a derogation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds was amended in 1994 to include the starling (sturnus vulgaris) in Annex II/2 of the Directive and to authorise the hunting of this bird in just four Member States (Greece, Spain, France and Portugal).

The Commission was not however aware of any desire by Italy to extend this provision to their national territory when preparatory work and discussions, which resulted in the Council adopting the amendment to the Directive in question, were taking place. Thus, prior to any further amendment to Annex II/2 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC, Italy may only derogate from the strict protection measures in force for this species for duly substantiated reasons, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 9 of the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2964/97 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (10 September 1997)

Subject: Possible departure of Director-General Enthoven

According to reports in the press, the Director-General of the Commission's DGXI, Mr Enthoven, will have to cease his duties.

1. Is this true?

2. If so, what are the reasons for his departure?

3. Does the Commission feel it makes for continuity in European environmental policy if the Director-General is removed from his post after only three years, given that a new Commission is expected to take office in two years' time?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

On 1 October 1997 the Commission decided to appoint Mr Enthoven, Director-General of the Directorate-General for the Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection (DG XI), to the post of Adviser hors classe to the Secretary-General and to appoint Mr James Currie, Director-General in the Directorate-General for Customs and Indirect Taxation, to the post of Director-General of DG XI.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3387/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Subsidies to support sale of processed cheese

The US Government claims that the European Union has failed to respect its undertaking to limit export refunds for processed cheese, as agreed at the end of the Uruguay Round. This is deemed by the US to constitute an unfair trade practice and it is possible that sanctions may be imposed.

How does the Commission react to this accusation and what steps are being taken to resolve the dispute? Is the Commission willing to open bilateral consultations with the US Government under the international dispute settlement procedure, so that a satisfactory solution may be found as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

This question has been discussed in the committee on agriculture established under the agreement on agriculture which is included in the Marrakech agreement establishing the World trade organisation (WTO). The processed cheese in question is produced under the inward processing relief arrangement whereby Community ingredients such as skimmed milk powder are used together with ingredients such as cheese imported from third countries. The ingredients from the Community are considered as exported with export refund and are counted against the ceilings for subsidised export. The United States on 8 October 1997 requested consultations with the Community under the understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes under WTO. The consultations should take place within 30 days of that date. On 17 October 1997 the Community accepted consultations. These consultations will take place shortly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2362/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Refusal by Indonesia to allow journalists entry to East Timor

On June 24 1997 the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia visited East Timor. The Indonesian authorities refused to allow any journalists to accompany him on this visit.

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have also been denied access to East Timor to investigate the ongoing reports of serious human rights abuses there, as have some parliamentarians who have tried to visit the Indonesian-controlled territory in the past.

Given the common position adopted by the EU on East Timor last year, which criticizes all abuse of human rights there, what action will the Council take to protest at the way the Indonesian authorities have denied any independent scrutiny of their forces' behaviour in East Timor?

Answer (22 December 1997)

The Council has always been extremely vigilant regarding the situation in East Timor and has insisted on numerous occasions with the Indonesian authorities that there should be greater transparency and greater ease of access for independent observers.

Furthermore, the EU has introduced a system of regular visits to East Timor by embassy staff accredited to Jakarta. Reports from these information missions are communicated to the competent bodies of the Council for analysis and discussion (in particular, to the Working Party on Asia and Oceania).

The EU's diplomatic missions make regular approaches to the Jakarta Government to urge greater openness to the requests of international and/or non-governmental organizations to go to East Timor.

Within the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the European Union has supported a Resolution which was approved at the last session and contains an appeal to the Indonesian authorities to ensure the creation of a post of Programme Officer for Human Rights, to be attached to the UNDP's Representation in Jakarta, with free access to East Timor.

The EU would stress that it supports in particular the mission of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Ambassador Marker, in the framework of the negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia under the aegis of Mr Annan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: SLIM: a Pilot Project

With reference to the Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament - Simpler legislation for the internal market (SLIM): a pilot project (COM(96) 0204 final), will the Commission adopt an incisive and vigorous approach to monitoring the Member States' transposal and application of Community legislation with the specific aim of preventing the cohesion of the Community market from being undermined, either by an inadequate level of transposal into national legislation, or by other factors?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

The proper enforcement of common rules across the entire single market is the major priority of the Commission, as set out in Chapter 5.1 of its communication to the Parliament and the Council on the impact and effectiveness of the single market ((COM(96) 520 final. )). The simplification of Community directives was also highlighted as an area for priority action.

The Commission followed up its report on the single market by means of an action plan for the single market ((Communication of the Commission to the European Council, CSE(97) 1 final. )) which was endorsed by the European Council.

The first of four strategic objectives contained in the Commission's action plan is 'Making the rules more effective'. It contains five actions to put agreed single market legislation into force, establish a framework for enforcement and problem-solving, provide better access for business to the right information, simplify and improve national and Community rules and tackle weaknesses in the existing legal framework.

The first action required Member States to provide by 1 October 1997 a detailed timetable showing their programmes of transposition to tackle urgently all delays and to ensure that transposition deadlines falling due before 1 January 1999 are respected. Almost all the Member States have now provided these timetables. The Commission will be monitoring Member States' performance against these timetables.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Environmental assessment

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (COM(96) 511 final - 96/0304 SYN).

Various other highly important directives on environmental controls, procedures and authorizations have been adopted in recent years or are currently being adopted. The present proposal therefore forms part of an already complex picture. Will the Commission take this opportunity to define more accurately the hierarchy governing the various directives and their specific fields of application, so as to avoid overlapping, duplication and excessive red tape?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1997)

The Commission agrees that there should not be an overlap or duplication between different environmental instruments. It bore this in mind when introducing the proposal for a directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment ((OJ C 129, 25.4.1997. )). This proposal extends the existing project level environmental impact assessment (EIA) system to the planning level of decision making, which comes before the project level. It is the second step in the introduction of a comprehensive environmental assessment system. The idea of having an environmental impact assessment system covering all levels of decision making is more than 20 years old and the Commission underlined its importance in all five environmental action programmes. Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. )) at project level and the proposed directive1 for the planning level complement each other and do not create a duplication of the system. Concerning other instruments in the environment field, such as Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) Directive 96/61/EC ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )) or the Seveso Directive 82/501/EEC on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities ((OJ L 230, 5.8.1982. )) or the Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) it has to be mentioned that all these instruments fulfil their own purpose and also complement each other to the degree necessary. As far as similarities exist (e.g. that information gathered could also be used to the extent appropriate to comply with requirements of other instruments) coherence clauses within the instruments assure that there is no overlap.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Detention on remand

The Strasbourg-based European Commission of Human Rights is critical of the excessively long detention on remand in the Contrada case, which, according to its understanding, violates Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Protracted detention on remand not only damages individual rights, but also, in practice, slows down trials and the related investigations.

Will the Commission set up a committee of inquiry to identify the European countries where the length of detention on remand exceeds the time laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been signed by the Member States?

Answer given by Ms Gradin on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

The Commission has no power to investigate alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Member States when the legislation in question or the actions of the national authorities relate to matters not covered by Community law.

The period of detention on remand in the Member States is such a matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Admission to the occupation of road haulage operator

This question concerns the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations (COM(97) 25 final - 97/0029 SYN) ((OJ C 95, 24.3.1997, p. 66. )).

The proposal is designed to continue the process of harmonizing the requirements for admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and strengthen the road transport market.

Attention should be drawn to the growing involvement of haulage operators in bilateral commerce concerning goods and passengers between the Member States and the CEECs. In a spirit of harmonization, an objective which continues to be pursued in the EU, and in order to avoid practices which may lead to distortions of competition and promote equal conditions for all, can the Commission examine, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of extending the influence of the Directive to road haulage operators in the CEECs involved in bilateral commerce with the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1997)

In its White Paper, 'Preparation of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe for integration into the internal market of the Union' ((COM(95) 163 final. )), the Commission identified certain key measures to focus the attention of these countries on items which would contribute most to the process of legislative approximation. Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation of road haulage and road passenger transport operator ((OJ L 124, 23.5.1996. )) was identified as a key measure, and the proposed modifying directive will also fall into this category. Eight central and eastern countries have indicated that they will have harmonised their laws with the current Directive by 1 January 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3125/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: BA/AA merger

British Airways has recently been extremely critical of the analysis carried out by the Commission regarding its proposed merger with American Airlines. Specifically, questions have been raised over the issue of slot allocation at Heathrow. Where the UK Office of Fair Trading proposed that BA should surrender 168 slots per week, the Commission has proposed a figure of 358.

What methodology was followed by the Commission to arrive at this figure, and why is it so much greater than the OFT figure?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 October 1997)

The Commission has conducted an analysis on the basis of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty and has arrived at the preliminary view that the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines raises serious competition concerns.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that the Commission is not in a position to give details on a case that is currently subject to scrutiny under the competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3056/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 October 1997)

Subject: Tobacco reform

The report from the Commission to the Council on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (COM(96) 554 final) provides for the contribution made to the Tobacco Research and Information Fund to be doubled by raising the percentage withheld from the premium to 2%.

Bearing in mind the Commission's guidelines concerning the Tobacco Research and Information Fund, environmental protection, checks and administrative streamlining, could the financial allocation for the fund be higher than the level proposed by the Commission so that the institutional activities concerned may be carried out effectively?

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

The reform of the common organisation of the market in tobacco proposed by the Commission in its report to Parliament and the Council includes, as essential points, the discouraging of smoking, research to develop the least harmful tobaccos possible and protection of the environment.

The Commission is proposing doubling the budget of the information fund to discourage smoking and help producer groups to finance schemes in the field of environmental protection.

The Commission considers that this doubling of the resources allocated to the information fund for health purposes is sufficient to enable it to carry out effective activities in the field of public health.