ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Closure of the district magistrate's court of Borgo San Lorenzo

A decision has recently been taken to close the magistrate's court at Borgo San Lorenzo (Florence). This decision is unwarranted (not least in view of the Italian Government's new determinations in this area) because the court covers a very wide area (over 1127 km2) with 56 000 inhabitants (the law requires a minimum of 50 000) and the closure of the court cannot be justified on the basis of the volume of the court's judicial activities.

The withdrawal of this service has had considerable drawbacks for the local population.

In view of the new Community orientations in the area of the reform of the judicial system, can the Commission express an opinion in order to allow the decision to be reviewed?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, since the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters has been a matter of common interest for the Member States. However, no provision has been made for European action relating to the organisation of the courts in the Member States.

Each Member State retains the sovereign power to decide on the number and location of courts in its territory on the basis of domestic considerations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Council

(2 June 1998)

Subject: The EU's enlargement eastwards and the role of the European Parliament

A concrete beginning has been made in the process of the EU's eastward enlargement in the form of the screening process. When the European Parliament was adopting its report on enlargement the Council Presidency representative promised Parliament a greater role, as enlargement progressed, in the form of a dialogue.

Does the Council intend to forward to Parliament the Commission's information reports on the screening process, and how frequently?

Reply

(28 /29 September 1998)

The Council is aware of the importance the European Parliament attaches to the issue of enlargement and of its role in this process. On the occasion of the Parliament's discussions on the reinforced pre-accession strategy and, in particular, on the framework regulation establishing the Accession Partnerships, the Council indicated its willingness to keep the Parliament informed on all important developments in the framework of the enlargement process. Such information will be provided by the Presidency of the Council on all available occasions, such as in plenary sessions of the Parliament and before the competent Parliamentary Committees and the Joint Parliamentary Committees.

The analytical examination of the "acquis" (screening) is part of the technical preparation for the accession negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. It is also an essential element in the preparation for accession negotiations with Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria. The screening exercise being carried out by the Commission has two main objectives: firstly, to explain what exactly is the "acquis" of the Union, with a view to ensuring that the applicant States are fully aware of the obligations which they will be called upon to accept as future Member States; secondly, to identify possible problems concerning the transposition of the "acquis".

The Commission, which began with the screening of the first chapters of the Union "acquis" on 27 April 1998, is proceeding sector by sector, concentrating, in the initial phase, on those which, in its view, pose the fewest potential problems. Despite the very tight timetable of the Commission, the screening exercise is not expected to end before the middle of 1999. The Commission regularly informs the relevant Council bodies on the progress of screening.

Without prejudice to direct information which the Commission may wish to provide to the Parliament, the Council will keep the European Parliament fully informed on all aspects of the enlargement process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1511/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Latest developments with regard to the central dairy in Rome

With reference to the previous questions on the central dairy in Rome - E-3408/97(1) and E-0547/98(2) and in the light of reports in the local press on 30 March this year, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that the granting of State aid to cover the operational costs of Rome central dairy may adversely affect the freedom of competition guaranteed by the Treaty;

2. whether it does not consider that the privatization procedure carried out by Rome city council is in accordance with the directives currently in force?

Can the Commission also keep the author of this question informed about any conclusions it may reach in the course of its work on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

1. According to its constant practice for application of Articles 92 to 94 of the EC Treaty, the Commission considers that the granting of operating aid to any company is likely to be incompatible with the common market, since it provides this company with a competitive advantage not available to other Community operators not receiving comparable aid. In its decision opening the procedure provided in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in regard to operating aids being granted to Centrale del Latte di Roma, the Commission maintained its established policy.

2. Although the Commission is not opposed to the privatisation of Central del Latte di Roma, it has opened the procedure provided in Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty because of doubts about the existence and the compatibility with the Treaty of certain aids that appear to have been granted in the framework of the privatisation process.

(1) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 103.

(2) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 84.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/98

by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Council

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the subsidiarity principle

The Commission takes the view that the system of reduced fares for families with several children practised by SNCF, the French rail operator, constitutes discrimination on the basis of nationality and is an obstacle to the freedom of establishment of nationals of other Member States.

Could the Council state its position on the subject?

Does the Council agree that the Commission's attitude is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Treaty on European Union?

Does the Council regard this anti-family measure as appropriate in view of Europe's declining population?

What does the Council intend to do to counter the Commission's demand?

Reply

(28 /29 September 1998)

In view of the division of powers between Institutions laid down by the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Council can only inform the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Treaty.

Moreover, it is not for the Council to comment on a procedure initiated under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2185/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Romanian orphanages

Recent reports have highlighted the continued abuse of many children in Romanian state orphanages. In one orphanage in Braila, Sectia RMPSC, children are reported to be subject to systematic abuse by the orphanage's director, Dr Stefan Bobecescu and his staff.

Since June of last year British aid workers and a Romanian speech therapist have been forced to leave Braila following growing concerns about the regime implemented in the orphanage. The death rate at the orphanage is alarming. Out of 47 children, at least seven have died in the last 18 months while the last available reports dating from January this year indicated that another three were deteriorating.

What action will the Commission take to raise these reports with the Romanian authorities?

Will the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Romanian authorities to allow EU aid workers into the orphanage to assess the welfare of the children?

What measures has the EU taken to monitor Romanian orphanages since the 1989 revolution when concerns about Romanian orphanages were first expressed?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

The Commission has taken up the case of Braila with the Romanian authorities. Braila is considered to be a hospital, not an orphanage and falls under the responsibility of the Romanian ministry of Health. That ministry is aware of the problems at the hospital and is committed to improving the situation.

The Commission has been following the situation of orphanages in Romania for many years and will continue to do so in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of the Accession partnership which highlights the continuation of child protection reform as a priority. Phare has provided extensive assistance to Romania in the child protection area. In 1994, a programme on child protection reform was launched to assist the Romanian government in the implementation of a comprehensive child care reform strategy. The Romanians have made progress in that context. The institutional framework for child protection policy has been fundamentally reformed. At the national level, the department of child protection (DPI) was created and is responsible for policy and strategy development of the reform of child protection. All operational responsibilities regarding the protection of children in difficulty were transferred from various central ministries to the county councils in a devolved system which is more effective in directly addressing the needs of the children. Each county council has established a commission for the protection of the child, which is responsible for decision making in respect of individual children and for accrediting non governmental organisations (NGOs). Given the desirability of the involvement of the third sector in child protection, further reform measures have been taken or are foreseen which aim at stimulating the involvement of NGOs in child protection in a sustainable manner. On the national level, the third sector has created a federation of NGOs active in child protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/98

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

(10 July 1998)

Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC

The legislation on hunting at Federal and Land level in the Federal Republic of Germany in many cases infringes the European Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC(1).

1. How many complaints on this subject have been lodged with the Commission to date?

2. How many infringement proceedings have been initiated by the Commission on this subject?

3. Has the European Court of Justice given judgments on this matter? If so, can the Commission indicate the date and case number of the judgments concerned?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

1. To date, 646 complaints reporting infringements of Directive 79/409/EC on the conservation of wild birds have been lodged with the Commission. There have been 54 complaints against Germany.

2. The Commission began infringement proceedings following each complaint. Complaints about similar facts were grouped together. At this point, three cases of infringement proceedings against Germany for failure to meet obligations resulting from Directive 79/409/EC are still in motion.

3. Following legal action taken by the Commission for failure to meet obligations resulting from Directive 79/409/EC, the Court gave judgment against Germany in the following cases:

- C-412/85 (judgment given on 17 September 1987)

- C-288/88 (judgment given on 3 July 1990)

- C-57/89 (judgment given on 28 February 1991)

- C-345/92 (judgment given on 23 March 1998) (Article 171 proceedings for failure to comply with the judgment given on 17 September 1987).

Case C-121/97 was removed from the register after Germany took steps to comply with the Court's judgment. This case had been opened on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty for failure to comply with the judgment of 3 July 1990.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Protection of small savers

The Commission is certainly aware of the recent Consolidating Act governing the financial markets in Italy and constituting an innovation with regard to the rules on corporate governance. Despite the fact that certain provisions for the protection of small savers are positive, does the Commission not believe that:

1. Since this protection is almost exclusively for the benefit of corporate investors ( employees' funds and associations ) it does not in fact safeguard small individual savers?

2. The fact that a complete takeover is compulsory when a shareholder exceeds 30 % of the capital actually produces a situation where the major groups are in a I dominating position? In the majority of Italian undertakings holdings are actually much more concentrated, whilst in the small number of large companies with a wide spread of shareholders ( such as recently privatized public companies ) that provision seems to act as a deterrent to any attempts to gain majority control involving expenditure of thousands of billion lire if that threshold is exceeded.

3. As the situation of shareholders in unquoted people' s banks and cooperative banks was not taken into consideration, those shareholders are at the mercy of the bank with regard to the assignment / transfer of their shares?

4. With the entry into force of the Euro, increased, effective/proper protection should be ensured for small savers investing on the stock market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1998)

The Commission takes the view that the Testo unico delle disposizioni finanziarie of 24 February 1998 contains, in the sphere of corporate governance, important provisions on the protection of investors in general and hence of individual investors too. The provisions aimed at making corporate governance more transparent and enhancing shareholder information and the rights of minority shareholders should benefit all the parties involved.

The new obligation to make a complete takeover bid should normally be favourable to minority shareholders. The amended proposal for a Directive on takeover bids(1) likewise provides for complete bids but also partial ones.

As regards people's banks and cooperative banks not listed on a regulated market, the Commission notes that, since it was clearly deemed not necessary to take account of the interests mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Testo unico expressly confines the scope of the amended rules to companies listed on regulated markets.

Introduction of the euro will offer investors the possibility of choosing between different national markets without exposure to the exchange risk.

(1) COM(97) 565 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations in Latvia

A great deal of attention has been paid in the Member States to environmental problems in the Baltic States and the pollution of the Baltic Sea region. Funding for the protection of the region's environment and the reduction of pollution has come from many quarters.

What proportion of the PHARE appropriations intended for Latvia was utilized in 1997 to repair and prevent environmental damage, and how was it allocated?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2754/98

by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Sicilian Regional Assembly law on hunting

On 20 August 1998 the Sicilian Regional Assembly passed a law on the protection of wild fauna and and on hunting, the provisions of which infringe Italy's national legislation and Constitution. In including among the species that may be hunted the rock partridge (Sicilian subspecies), the law also infringes a specific European directive, 79/409/EEC(1) and successive amendments to the latter, which lists the bird in Annex I of species for special protection at European level. In view of the foregoing, what steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the law - and European directives -are upheld?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts in order to obtain all available information on the matter described. It will not hesitate to initiate the procedure provided in Article 169 of the EC Treaty, should this prove necessary.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1721/98

by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Limits on noise emitted by airports in the European Union: closure at night

In its resolution of 10 June 1997 (A4-0183/97)(1) on the Commission's Green Paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 0540), Parliament called on the Commission "to lay down and standardize obligatory standards ... to limit aviation noise" (paragraph 29) and was of the opinion that "flight movements, particularly at night, are a source of nuisance to people and that they should be reduced" (paragraph 31).

What specific action has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, in response to Parliament's call for a coordinated limit on noise nuisance resulting from flight movements at night at certain airports in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

As part of its 1998 work programme, the Commission is preparing a communication on air transport and environment which is intended to include an assessment of the scope and contents of a possible future Community framework on operating restrictions, in particular relating to night flights at noise constrained airports. In the meantime the Commission has submitted a proposal which builds upon previous Community legislation(2) to limit the registration and use in the Community of hushkitted aircraft(3).

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

(2) Council Regulation 92/14/CEE, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992., amended by Council Directive 98/20/EC, OJ L 107, 7.4.1998.

(3) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/98

by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission

(12 June 1998)

Subject: Financial support for an information campaign to publicize Natura 2000

Further to Mrs Bjerregaard's answer to my Written Question E-0629/98(1), I should like the following specific information: pursuant to the Council Decision of 16 December 1997 on a Community action programme promoting non-governmental organizations principally active in the field of environmental protection, which NGOs received a Community subsidy for activities directly connected with Natura 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Following the call for the submission of proposals for the promotion of European non-governmental organisations (NGOs ) whose principal activity is in the field of environmental protection(2), in 1997 the Commission granted a Community subsidy to NGOs for activities directly connected with Natura 2000. The organisations in question are the World Wildlife Fund, the European Policy Office (Belgium), Stichting Wetlands International (Netherlands) and Birdlife International (Austria).

A complete list of NGOs which received funding in 1997 has been published in the Official Journal(3).

The Commission has published a call for the submission of proposals(4) pursuant to Council Decision 97/872/EC of 16 December 1997 on a Community action programme promoting non-governmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection,(5) The selection procedure relating to this call for proposals is in progress.

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 106.

(2) OJ C 53, 22.2.1997.

(3) OJ C 85, 20.3.1998.

(4) OJ 25, 24.1.1998.

(5) OJ L 354, 30.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Compliance with quality standards in public works in Greece

A report drawn up by the body responsible for the quality control of public works in Greece (ESPEL) concerning regional development projects jointly funded by the 2nd CSF identified breaches of quality standards so serious in some cases that there was a risk of requiring the work to be carried out again.

Since failure to comply with quality standards gives rise to major problems in terms of duly completing projects on time and within the approved budget, will the Commission say:

1. whether the Commission or the Member State has made any claims against contractors responsible for the works who were found to be in breach of the quality standards, and

2. whether there are procedures whereby the names of the firms (contractors) held responsible for such breaches can be made known and whether they can be excluded from tendering for contracts in future?

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

(7 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no P-2120/98 by Mr Trakatellis(1).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 131.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/98

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Hop-growing in the province of Leon (Spain)

It is widely known that since 1985 the area given over to hop-growing in the province of Leon (Spain) has been drastically reduced, to the point where only half of the original area of 2000 hectares is under production.

This situation has brought serious social consequences as a result of the job losses caused in an area with serious unemployment problems and the attempt to reduce the area under production still further will irreparably worsen this terrible social scourge.

In addition, it has been amply demonstrated that there are no reasonably viable alternative crops which might offer a solution to the deepening problem that any further reductions in hop-growing would create.

In the light of this disturbing situation, will the Commission consider using as a reference point for any possible reductions the surface area under crops in 1985, bearing in mind that sufficient and substantial reductions have been made since that date?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

In reply to the Honourable Member's question, the temporary special measures for the hops sector adopted by the Council on 25 May 1998 with a view to the temporary resting or grubbing up of hops are entirely optional for the producer Member States, which can decide whether to apply them or not.

1997 was taken as the base year for the measures because the prices on the open market, especially for German hops (which account for 80 % of the Community's production), have fallen to very low levels that are appreciably below the average for the last 20 years.