ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Division into regions and the structural funds

The following question has already been put to Mrs Wulf-Mathies, Member of the Commission, at a recent meeting of the Economic and Social Committee's Section for Regional Development. I should like to repeat it so that the answer can serve as a basis for discussions in the European Parliament: Given the Commission's avowed intention to withdraw the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region from Objective 1, does it follow that Ireland will also be divided by the Commission into regions, on the basis of the same criteria, so that some of them can remain in Objective 1? In other words, if Ireland remains a single region for the purposes of eligibility for structural fund resources, on what basis is Portugal being divided in this way? What political criterion is involved?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1998)

The Commission has proposed that eligibility for objective 1 should continue to be established by reference to a threshold of 75% of Community average gross domestic product (GDP) in PPS (purchasing power standards) at level 2 of the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS).

The NUTS system was established in the 1970s to provide a single uniform breakdown of territorial units for the production of regional statistics. Since 1988, it has also been used for the classification of regions eligible for objective 1 of the structural funds.

In almost all Member States, the various levels of the NUTS reflect the administrative division of the Member State. Ireland has always been a single NUTS 2 region, while Portugal has consisted of five NUTS 2 regions on the mainland, plus the Azores and Madeira. The NUTS system is generally stable over time, as changes only arise from the alteration of the administrative structure of a Member State. In the absence of such developments, the Commission has no plans to propose changes to the NUTS structure of either Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0981/98 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (23 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the Parental Directive in the UK

Can the Commission inform Parliament of the precise date by which the UK is required to implement the 1996 Directive on Parental Leave?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by the Union of industrial and employers' confederation of Europe (UNICE), Centre européen de l'économie publique (CEEP) and the European trade union confederation (ETUC) ((OJ L 145, 19.6.1996. )) was adopted under the social protocol and did not apply to the United Kingdom. The other Member States must transpose the provisions of this Directive by 3 June 1998, this being two years from adoption, although they can ask for an extension of one year, if this is necessary to take account of special difficulties or implementation by a collective agreement (Article 2/2).

Directive 97/75/EC ((OJ L 10, 16.1.1998. )) extends to the United Kingdom Directive 96/34/EC, and the United Kingdom must transpose its provisions by 15 December 1999, this being two years from adoption, as for the other Member States. The United Kingdom could also avail itself of the possibility of a one year extension, on the same basis as above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0521/98 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Local Exchange Transfer Schemes (LETS)

Is the Commission aware of the case of two UK expatriates living in France who were fined by a court for participating in a LETS? LETS schemes allow their members to help each other in return for symbolic units of exchange that can later be bartered for other services such as baby-sitting, gardening or minor building repairs. The system is a growing aspect of the co-operative or social economy. 240 LETS schemes have been approved by the French Ministry of Labour, and there are many others across the EU.

Does the Commission have any plans to promote LETS schemes, which can play a major role in strengthening civic society and combatting social exclusion? Does it plan any studies to examine their extent across the EU? Has it any plans to discourage Member States from discriminating against LETS schemes?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

The development of local exchange trade systems (or LETs) is a phenomenon which is visibly gaining in popularity, as shown in the cases cited by the Honourable Member.

Their importance, however, differs greatly from one Member State to another. Whilst some Member States see them almost as public service initiatives, they pose a number of legal problems in other Member States, particularly as regards taxation, competition, labour law and social security. It is the responsibility of the Member States to examine most of these specific problems, insofar as these systems have not been subject to harmonisation measures at Community level.

The Commission is certainly in favour of these many different expressions of solidarity reflected in the LETs mutual assistance schemes, provided that these are in accordance with the respective legal provisions in the different Member States.

It should, at all events, be noted that the Member States were asked in the Conclusions to the European Council Meeting on Employment held in Luxembourg to investigate measures to exploit fully the possibilities offered by job creation at local level in the social economy and in new activities linked to needs not yet satisfied by the market, with the aim of reducing any obstacles in the way of such measures (conclusion 65).

In compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission will, for its part, investigate how all forms of economic and legal organisation can, on an equal basis, reap the benefits of the Single Market and take part in future stages of the process of European integration. This will be done by means of Community actions in favour of cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations (CMAF) which will, through the extension of initiatives already launched, aim to promote a true and complete image of the sector, demonstrate and raise its business potential, and improve its ability to prepare for the new challenges and demands of society in the 21st century.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0442/98 by Ian Paisley (NI) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Aid to farmers

Can the Commission give details of the amount of European grant aid given to farmers in the Irish Republic to help them diversify from traditional farming methods into greyhound breeding?

Can the Commission list how many grants have been awarded in each calendar year and how much money has been allocated in each financial year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998)

As part of the Community policy for rural development, the Commission has encouraged Member States to provide aid for the diversification of agricultural production towards non-food products.

In the case of Ireland Community aid was available to farmers and other rural dwellers to diversify into greyhound breeding under the operational programme for agriculture, rural development and forestry 1994-1999. An amount of Ir£ 870 000 of public expenditure was provided for schemes to improve breed quality and for marketing and promotion. No claims have been made on Community funding and it has been decided to withdraw the measures from the operational programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0937/98 by José Escudero (PPE) to the Commission (16 March 1998)

Subject: Cultural cooperation with Latin America

Can the Commission provide information on the arrangements for participating in cultural cooperation with Latin America through the existing funds? Are there public tendering procedures or aid and/or cofinancing programmes for approved and published projects which would enable citizens and cultural organizations to gain access to participation in and the distribution of such funds?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1998)

Between 1992 and 1997 the Commission provided a total of ECU 3.5 million to finance a number of cultural cooperation projects with Latin American countries. The main areas of cooperation were: Latin American cultural identity and cultural dialogue, the common heritage of Europe and Latin America, the image of Latin America in Europe, the cultural heritage and cultural tourism.

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 5 of Council Regulation No 443/92 (EEC) of 25 February 1992 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America ((OJ L 52, 27.2.1992. )), the Commission devotes particular attention to the cultural aspects of all the development projects it finances in Latin America. As regards applications for and allocation of project financing, the Commission applied the rules and standards in force at the time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1090/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Council (6 April 1998)

Subject: Draft Directive on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising of tobacco products

Can the Council give details of the envisaged constitutional implications of the proposed Directive for the Member States, in particular in relation to civil liberties?

As it stands, the draft Directive makes no reference to subsidiarity or conditionality. Can the Council confirm whether it considered these principles in elaborating its Common Position and explain the conclusions it reached?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1090/98 and P-1256/98 (6 July 1998)

1. As the Honourable Members will be aware, on 13 May 1998, after detailed discussion, the European Parliament approved on second reading the Council's common position on the European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

2. The reasoning that guided the Council in the proceedings that led to the adoption of its common position were stated in detail in the recitals and in the statement of the Council's reasons sent to the European Parliament before the second reading. The Council believes that this common position poses no problems regarding civil liberties and that it complies fully with the principles of subsidiarity and conditionality.

3. Finally, the Council would remind the Honourable Members that it is for the Commission to ensure that the measures taken by the institutions under the Treaty are applied and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/98 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Failure to issue driving licences to persons suffering from Diabetes Mellitus in the UK

Following an enquiry from my constituent, Mr Paul Moore of Wickford, does the Commission believe that the failure to issue a driving licence to a person with Diabetes Mellitus under Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 52, 27.2.1991, p. 5. )), enacted in the UK from 1 January 1998, could constitute discrimination under the new Article 6A in the draft Treaty of Amsterdam? Will the Commission investigate this issue?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)

The Commission does not believe that the provisions relating to diabetes mellitus, stipulated in point 10 of Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) constitute a discrimination under the new Article 6A of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam.

For more detailed information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written question E-113/98 by Mrs Waddington ((See page 23. )) and oral question 60/98 by Mrs McIntosh during question time at Parliament's February 1998 part-session ((Debate of the Parliament (February 1998). )). The Commission is also sending to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of Parliament a copy of the letter which it has sent to general enquirers on his specific issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/98 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (6 April 1998)

Subject: Recording the cause of death: EU practice

The daughter of a constituent of mine recently died in Rotterdam from leukaemia. The Dutch authorities, when issuing the death certificate, did not state the exact cause of death, apparently because of the privacy laws in Holland. The death certificate therefore simply stated 'no contagious disease'. When her body was brought back to the United Kingdom for burial, however, the British coroner had to rule on the cause of death. The Dutch statement was found to be so vague as to be unacceptable, and a post mortem was ordered. This added to the distress of the family. Can the Commission state whether there is in place, or under discussion, any system whereby the certification of death and cause of death in one Member State can be accepted in another Member State without further inquiry of the kind in Britain where a coroner has to open an inquiry and may order a post mortem?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998)

The civil status of people has been expressly excluded from the scope of the Brussels convention of 1968 on recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters. This question is therefore a matter of national law of Member States. The Commission is not aware of any instrument whereby the certification of death and cause of death by a contracting state would be automatically recognised in another contracting state.

Under the aegis of the International commission on civil status (ICCS), a convention has been signed in Istanbul, in 1958, dealing with international exchange of information between officials in charge of civil status in contracting states. However, this convention does not provide any rule on legal effects in a contracting state. These legal effects are ruled by national laws.

In addition, the United Kingdom, although it has become a member of the ICCS in 1996, did not ratify this convention so far.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Tapping of European telephone, fax and E-mail traffic by the USA

1. Is the Council aware that EU Member States tap one another's communications on a large scale?

If so, what will the Council do about it?

2. Does the Council consider that existing legislation in the Union provides adequate means of preventing the United States or any other country, including the Member States, from using modern technologies unlawfully to violate the privacy of European citizens and the confidentiality of information?

3. If not, will the Council ask the Commission to propose European and international rules to combat abuses of new information and communications technologies?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

The Council is aware of publications in the media about the matters referred to by the Honourable Member in point 1 of her question, but has no information about these practices.

As far as telecommunications interceptions are concerned, the Council is currently examining a draft convention on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, drawn up on the basis of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, which will, inter alia, set rules on the lawful interception of telecommunications in cross-border situations in the framework of criminal investigations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/98 by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Violation of European law by Italy

1. Has the Commission now received any of the information from the Italian authorities referred to in its answers to questions E-2945/97 ((OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 108. )) and E-3330/97 ((OJ C 138, 30.4.1998, p. 138. )) concerning a vehicle registration problem?

2. In the light of any information received, does the Commission consider there are grounds for an investigation under the procedure established by Article 169 of the EC Treaty or has it already begun such an investigation?

3. If so, when can the first results be expected?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1998)

The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities several times on the problems posed by the registration of vehicles in Italy by citizens resident in other Member States. In the course of these enquiries it has obtained the following information and undertakings.

The difficulties encountered in the past by Italian nationals living abroad should now have been resolved, following the adoption by the Italian Ministry of Transport and Navigation of DG IV's Circular No 106 of 14 October 1997.

This circular enables Italian nationals listed in the AIRE (the register of Italian citizens living abroad) to register their vehicles in Italy and to obtain the corresponding registration document subject to the same conditions as Italian nationals resident in Italy.

However, applicants who are nationals of another Member State and living in a country other than Italy and who none the less want to use their vehicles in Italy on a permanent basis are still not allowed to register them there. The Italian authorities require a residence permit, to ensure compliance with national provisions on tax and public order connected with the ownership and use of the vehicle.

The Commission has informed the Italian authorities that this practice may hamper exercise of the freedoms recognised under the EC Treaty. It has also drawn their attention to the fact that less restrictive means of verification exist, particularly where the applicant can demonstrate a meaningful 'link' with Italy (because he or she owns or rents accommodation there on a long-term basis, for example).

The Italian authorities have undertaken to look into a possible solution in this area and have asked that a system based on the same criteria be envisaged at Community level. While waiting for proposals from the Italian authorities, the Commission has started discussions on the subject to discover whether similar problems also exist in the other Member States and, if so, to find a common solution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Toxic pollution in the Aegean from industrial plants situated on its eastern shores

According to data from the UN's Mediterranean Action Programme (UNEP 1997) and the relevant OECD reports, vast amounts of industrial waste are being dumped into the Aegean. This pollution is caused by hundreds of industrial plants on the Turkish coast which refuse to comply with international rules on pollution: they constitute a sort of toxic time-bomb which threatens the ecological balance of the region as a whole.

Will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to address this problem which will inflict environmental and economic disaster on a vital region of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission is aware of problems relating to the environment in Turkey. The resolution of the Community-Turkey Association Council of 6 March 1995 provided for cooperation on this with Turkey to commence in order to step up efforts to combat the deterioration of the environment.

Under the MEDA Programme the Turkish authorities have submitted to the Commission a project for the evaluation and control of marine pollution and ground and air pollution along the whole of Turkey's Mediterranean shore. Financial cooperation with Turkey as it now stands means it is impossible to say whether such a project could be financed in the near future.

The Commission communication of 15 July 1997 on the further development of relations with Turkey ((COM(97) 394 final. )) also proposed emphasising cooperation on the environment so as to trigger sustainable development in the country and integrate this sector with other economic policies. Cooperation of this kind will require funds from the Community budget. The Luxembourg European Council (December 1997) approved these policy guidelines and called on the Commission to make appropriate proposals. These were adopted by the Commission on 4 March 1998 in its communication entitled 'European strategy for Turkey: the Commission's initial operation approach' ((COM(98) 124 final. )). It proposed, in particular, that Turkish institutions working on the environment should be strengthened and human resources in this area stepped up. Training in the assessment of environmental pollution hazards and their prevention is also provided for in the communication. To do these things will require funds from the Community budget, from the MEDA Programme in particular.

The Commission would also point out that Turkey is a signatory to certain international conventions for the protection of the environment, including the Barcelona Convention on the protection of the Mediterranean Sea and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. The Secretariats of each of these Conventions have to be informed in the event of infringements. Turkey therefore has to apply the Decision of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 March 1992 on the Control of Transfrontier Movement of Wastes for Utilisation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/98 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Application by Cuba to accede to the ACP-EU Convention

Bearing in mind that Cuba is the only Latin American country that is not linked to the European Union by a cooperation agreement, can the Commission say whether an application has been made by the Cuban authorities to accede to the ACP-EU Convention?

If so, and bearing in mind that this would involve a change of attitude in relations between the European Union and Cuba, could the Commission explain what its response to this application has been? What are the terms in which the Commission has commented or will be commenting on this interesting initiative?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (27 April 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-832/98 by Mr Cabezón Alonso ((OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 136. )).