ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1783/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Andorra

In February 1998 the Council of Ministers approved an extension to the trade agreement with Andorra. However, these agreements have not yet come into force and seem to have been frozen.

Will the Commission say why these agreements have not yet entered into force?

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

(16 July 1998)

It is not correct that the Council approved an extension of the trade agreement with Andorra in February 1998.

The relations between Andorra and the Community are based on the customs union agreement of 28 June 1990, which came into force on 1 July 1991.

The Council adopted on 24 February 1997 negotiation directives authorising the Commission to enter into negotiations on the conclusion of a co-operation agreement with Andorra, of which the Parliament was informed. On 19 January 1998 the Commission finalised negotiations of that co-operation agreement. It covers a wide range of issues, including the environment, communications, information, culture, transport, regional and cross-border co-operation, and social issues. It does not affect the working of the customs union agreement. The two agreements should work side by side and be managed by the same joint committee. The initialling of the new agreement is currently on hold by the Commission until a satisfactory solution is found to the tobacco question.

The Commission is very concerned by the extent and gravity of tobacco smuggling, and would like to see swift progress towards a solution of what is an intolerable situation for the Community and its Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2786/98

by Ana Palacio Vallelersundi (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Eligibility of Spanish "ingenieros técnicos" to sit competitions for A/LA posts at the EU institutions

The Commission has been informed, via the documentation attached to the annulment proceedings taken out on 1 December 1997 at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by Mr Vicente Alonso Morales (T-299/97), that Mr Roberto Arce Recio, a Spanish national holding the qualification of "ingeniero técnico", was accepted for doctoral study at the Université Paul Sabatier in Toulouse (France), and, on 24 June 1998, was awarded his doctorate, obtaining a distinction in the process. Can the Commission explain why Mr Liikanen, in his reply of 10 February 1998 to Written Question E-4186/97(1), tabled by Mrs Barbara Dührkop Dührkop, stated that one of the Commission's reasons for not considering Spanish "ingenieros técnicos" to be eligible for A/LA posts in the Community civil service is that this Spanish qualification does not give admission to doctoral studies?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

As the Commission has already stated in response to other parliamentary questions, it cannot give an opinion on a matter that is sub judice.

According to the applicable Spanish legislation(2), university education in Spain is organised in three parts. On successful completion of part one the student obtains the official diploma of "diplomado, ingeniero técnico or arquitecto técnico." It gives access to the second part. On successful completion of part two the student obtains the official diploma of "licenciado, arquitecto or ingeniero." This gives access to the third part, doctoral studies. Therefore the holder of a diploma of "ingeniero técnico" (issued on completion of part one) cannot have direct access to doctoral studies.

A decision as to whether or not a diploma can be accepted for access to the civil service must be based on the legislation of the Member State where the candidate completed his studies, in this case Spain.

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15.

(2) Ley Organica 11/1983, 25.8. of the Reforma Universitaria, and LOGSE 1/1990, 3.10.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1532/98

by Dietrich Elchlepp (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: The 250 km distance requirement in the EU's European town-twinning programme

Numerous twinning arrangements exist between towns either side of the Franco-German border in the southern upper Rhine valley, where, however, it is not understood why the Commission requires twinned towns to be at least 250 km apart in order for twinning events to be eligible for Action Area 1 support under the EU's European town-twinning programme.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for such a requirement and consider scrapping this regrettable restriction?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

The Community town-twinning programme, for which a limited appropriation is contained in the budget, was set up to encourage efforts to develop the content and geographic extent of town-twinning and in particular to provide assistance in those cases where the greatest obstacles are encountered. In granting aid, priority is therefore given for twinning purposes to those towns which are farthest apart and to town-twinning meetings attended by towns located in the Union's disadvantaged (e.g. Objective 1 regions) and outlying regions. Bilateral twinning arrangements in the internal border areas of the Union are therefore not encouraged as a priority. In such cases, a regular exchange between citizens entails comparatively little in terms of travel and communications costs. Most of the twin towns to have qualified for assistance so far are over 1 000 km apart.

However, there is no restriction in the shape of a minimum distance for the holding of events on specific topics by the twinned towns or the ongoing training measures for those in charge of town-twinning arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2361/98

by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission

(15 July 1998)

Subject: UEFA rule on common ownership

Is the Commission aware that monopoly sports organizations are imposing rules which affect sports throughout Europe, without explanation or prior consultation with those affected? The latest example is UEFA's new rule, introduced retrospectively and without consultation, to prohibit football clubs under common control from participating in the same European competition.

Surely the Commission would agree that it is unacceptable for sporting organizations exercising monopoly power to continue to disregard the principles of transparency and consultation in making decisions which affect the economic development of sport in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The Commission is aware that the Union of European football associations (UEFA) has recently adopted rules that regulate the participation in European competitions of clubs belonging to the same owner.

It seems at first sight that these rules have a sporting nature and that they aim to preserve uncertainty of results, an objective which the Court of justice has recognised as legitimate in its judgement of 15 December 1995 in the Bosman case(1). Clearly, if clubs with the same owner can take part in the same competitions, whether national or international, doubts may arise as to whether the outcome is really undecided in advance.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to determine whether these UEFA rules are limited to what is strictly necessary to attain the objective of ensuring the uncertainty as to results or whether there exist less restrictive means to achieve it. Provided that such rules remain in proportion to the sporting objective pursued, they would not be covered by the competition rules laid down in the EC Treaty.

At this stage, the Commission does not possess all the necessary information to assess the compatibility of the rules with Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty. Whether UEFA has or not consulted other bodies is not relevant for this assessment.

(1) Case C-415/93 (1995) ECR I-4921, paragraph 106.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1908/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: EU policy on regional planning and the Structural Funds

Can the Commission provide information on all the projects relating to regional planning cofinanced by the Commission to date under the Community initiatives, as well as those which are to be funded up to the end of the current programming period, specifying the beneficiary regions, the total cost of implementation and the level of Community cofinancing?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1907/98 and E-1908/98 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Members and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1640/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Encryption of radio and television by RAI (Italian state radio and television service)

Under Article F(2) of the Treaty, the European Union must respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as general principles of Community law.

With reference to the provision of public radio and television services, the Member States must take the necessary measures to protect the right to information and ensure that their citizens have access to broadcasts of national and international events of great importance for society, such as the Olympic Games, the Football World Cup and the European Football Championship, by adopting measures compatible with Community law to regulate broadcasting activities. Pursuant to Article 128(4) of the Treaty, the Union must take into account cultural aspects in its action.

Public services come within the context of "free television". All measures aimed at limiting reception and/or suspending television broadcasts are governed by Directive 89/552/EEC(1), as amended by Directive 97/36/EEC(2), and failure to comply with them is a breach of Community law.

In view of these facts, can the Commission check whether RAI, the Italian public service radio and television network, is complying with Articles 2(1) and (2), 2a(1), 3a(1), 11(1), 18 and 22a of the directive and can it take action to bring to an end RAI's current practice of systematically encrypting programmes intended for abroad?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 1998)

Under Article 3 of Directive 89/552/EEC (known as the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, the responsibility to ensure that broadcasters comply with the rules (including those mentioned by the Honourable Member) lies first and foremost with Member States. Under Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the Commission must ensure that Community law (in this case, the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive) is correctly transposed into national law and correctly applied. The Commission would thus examine very carefully any complaint submitted but, in the case in point, no complaint has yet been received.

The Commission has no legal means to prevent the RAI from broadcasting encrypted programmes abroad. This is a contractual matter between the broadcaster and the holders of the rights.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1633/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Shipping using Community ports

I would refer to the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (COM(97) 416 final - 97/0215 SYN)(1), stress my support for the ISM Code, which is an important instrument for improving maritime safety provisions at world level and welcome the Commission's proposal to make it compulsory to detain a ship where the recognized documents of compliance or safety management certificates are missing.

Can the Commission ensure that the provisions relating to the checks carried out by the port State are applied uniformly throughout Community territory to avoid tempting owners to send ships which do not entirely comply with the requirements to ports where the inspection system seems to be applied less rigorously?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

The need to ensure that port state control inspections are carried out to a consistent level of integrity is a fundamental principle of the whole port state control system. The entry into force of the new provisions, including the compulsory detention of those ships that do not comply with the requirements of the international standards method (ISM) code, requires an even greater effort to reach a higher level of harmonisation throughout the Community.

The Commission is well aware that lack of harmonisation between the port state control regimes of Member Stats can lead to distortions of competition among the ports and have a detrimental effect on safety. For this reason, the Commission is closely monitoring the performances of the Member States in this area. Furthermore, given that appropriate and uniform training of all the Community inspectors is a prerequisite for harmonised application of port state control throughout the Community. The Commission finances such training on a permanent basis. An ad hoc training course for port state control inspectors on the ISM code will be carried out at the end of May 1998, in view of the entry into force of the latest amendments from 1 July 1998 to Council Directive 98/25/EC of 27 April 1998 amending Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of ships using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port state control(2)).

(1) OJ C 264, 30.8.1997, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 133, 7.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: East Timor

Further to its answer to parliamentary question (E-1050/98)(1) will the Commission outline the proposals under consideration for humanitarian aid and development to East Timor?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The health and education sectors are envisaged as possible sectors for intervention. The Commission is, however, not in a position to outline details of the proposals since they are subject to negotiation with the organisations concerned.

The Commission carried out an evaluation mission in May 1998. The principal areas of possible intervention were identified as health, nutrition and water supply.

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 110.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1847/98

by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Invitation to tender of 23 February 1998 for the supply of breeding cattle to Bosnia- Herzegovina (Ref. IA:D-1:Hdl D(98))

1. With regard to animal health, the above-mentioned invitation to tender specifies that the animals selected for Bosnia-Herzegovina should be tested for tuberculosis 60 days before shipment and for other diseases 30 days before shipment. Is the Commission aware that animals are being selected without any tests for tuberculosis being required for the animal health certificate and that blood tests 30 days before shipment are no longer being carried out?

2. The tender specifications require bulls to be progeny-tested and proof that cows have produced 4 800 kg and 5 300 kg of milk in their first and second lactations respectively. Is the Commission aware that this requirement is no longer being applied or has been relaxed, so that cows have been selected which produced as little as 4 200 kg of milk during their first and only lactation, and/or milk production of 4 500 kg and 4 700 kg has been required in the case of second and third lactations?

3. Besides blood tests, the animal health requirements specify that at least 40 animals must be assembled for presentation to the selection committee. This means that exporters have to keep animals in special lairage for at least 60 days longer than is normal, which is very costly. Does the Commission take the view that this measure is still necessary for the conduct of veterinary controls?

4. In the invitation to tender, the breed is stipulated as "red and white dual-purpose". Is the Commission aware that farmers in Bosnia-Herzegovina would mainly like to buy Simmentals, but that this invitation to tender discriminates precisely against such breeds?

Answer given by MrVan den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

The research undertaken by the Commission to answer the Honourable Member's question has revealed that this is a very extensive and complex matter. More detailed investigations are necessary, involving a number of departments. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of these investigations once they are completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1931/98

by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: ECSC aid for the Portuguese steel industry

The steel company Siderurgia Nacional - Empresa de Produtos Longos (company specializing in long products), currently a consortium between the Portuguese State and Megasa, which is of Spanish origin, reports that the ECSC has stopped its aid and funding with regard to appropriations for payments to workers taking early retirement on reaching 55 years of age, in accordance with the agreement reached between the ECSC and the Portuguese State with regard to the national steel sector (Siderurgia Nacional - Empresa de Planos Longos (long products), Siderurgia Nacional - Empresa de Serviços (services) and Lusosider - Aços Planos (flat products)).

Is that report correct?

Is it true that the ECSC has cancelled its support, contrary to the agreement reached with the Portuguese State on this sector?

If so, what will the situation be for those workers who have taken early retirement since September 1997?

Why does the "suspension" of aid apply only to workers in the Empresa de Produtos Longos?

Is it true that the reason for the "suspension" is that the funds earmarked for early retirement have been improperly used for allowances for workers recently put under some pressure to cancel their contracts by "mutual agreement"?

Has the Portuguese government been informed of the suspension of the conditions relating to the ECSC agreement?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

In accordance with the rules laid down in the bilateral conventions with the Member States, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) continues to cofinance readaptation aid under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty and the Bilateral Convention of 13 July 1989 for steelworkers and mineworkers who lose their jobs and who for this reason take early retirement or are made redundant, or must change workplace, either within the company or by moving to another company.

With the exception of aid for training and employment which the Commission decided to suspend from 1 January 1995, none of the measures laid down in the bilateral conventions for workers who find themselves in one of the situations described here have been abolished. In the steel sector, however, for each steelworks the total number of beneficiaries (early retirement, redundancy and external redeployment) is limited to the number of job losses at the works concerned.

Within this framework, the ECSC was able to grant the amount laid down in the bilateral convention with Portugal in 1997 to 19 SN Longos workers having to take early retirement and 103 workers having to be made redundant, in accordance with the application made by the Portuguese government that year.

The Commission has no information which suggests that the aid granted which is intended for early retirement has been used for other purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2263/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Sweden in 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Sweden under the EAGGF Guarantee Section in 1995 and provide a breakdown of expenditure:

- by heading (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silk worms, other plant products, wine products, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef/veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultry, other measures concerning animal products, refunds on certain goods obtained by processing agricultural products, refunds in connection with Community food aid, distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons, accompanying measures, rural development measures linked to markets, other measures, income aid, and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund); and

- by type of aid (export refunds, price compensating aids, acreage aid, aid for livestock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawals and similar operations, monetary compensatory amounts, measures accompanying reform of the CAP, and public storage costs)?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1526/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: EU customs aid agreement with Albania

On 12 March Commissioner Mario Monti visited Albania and signed the EU's customs aid agreement with that country. Under this agreement the European Union is allocating ECU 225 000 to the Guardia di Finanza (the Italian customs and tax police) to use two of its patrol boats in collaboration with the Albanian authorities to monitor commercial shipping and eliminate smuggling.

Is the Commission aware that the Greek island of Corfu is being targeted by the Albanian Mafia and that large amounts of illegal drugs are crossing the Greek-Albanian border? Why has it not provided comparable funding for Greek port, customs and police authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

In response to a request from the Albanian side to deal with major smuggling problems, the Commission has made a short term commitment partially financing the provision of Italian tax and customs police officials (Guardia di Finanza) to assist their Albanian counterparts based on an agreement between Albania and Italy on deployment and naval assistance in the customs sector. This action falls within the framework of the support of the Community to Albania and is covered by the memorandum of understanding on customs assistance to Albania signed between the Commission and Albania.

The Commission is aware of broader smuggling problems in the Albanian region but has not examined the question of providing similar assistance to the Greek authorities in the absence of a specific request from the Greek side. However the Commission has financed actions and worked closely with the Greek administration in connection with the pre-arrival intelligence system for transmitting information to assist in combating fraud in commercial traffic arriving in Albania.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations in Estonia

Educational cooperation is one of the most important forms of grass-roots cooperation between the EU Member States and the candidate countries.

Of the PHARE appropriations intended for Estonia, how much was utilized in 1997 for such cooperation and what proportion of these appropriations did it represent?