ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/98

by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Council

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Funding for the elderly

A Commission proposal for a new Action Programme for the Elderly has been languishing in the Council with no immediate prospects for approval due to objections from one Member State - Germany.

In marked contrast, the UN Year of the Elderly will be launched in a few months time and the European Parliament is sponsoring its own Senior Citizens Conference in October.

What message does this send to the citizens of Europe, whose population is ageing rapidly? What are the objections of this Member State? If the Council cannot accept the Commission's proposal, what alternative action does the Council intend to take?

Reply

(6 October 1998)

Council proceedings on the Commission proposal for a new Action Programme for the Elderly have indeed been suspended since November 1995 and there are, for the time being, no plans to resume them.

There has been no opportunity for the Council to hold a general debate on the subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Education programmes

In its opinion on the communication from the Commission entitled "Towards a Europe of knowledge" (COM(97) 0563) the European Parliament strongly advocated a distinction between the objectives and promotional measures of the education programmes and those of the Structural Funds, especially the Social Fund.

How will the Commission ensure this distinction is made in the new generation of programmes, thus taking account of the European Parliament's concern?

In the document it has submitted the Commission says that the procedures need to be simplified, made user-friendly and brought closer to the citizen.

The Erasmus programme, however, has undergone no more than a minor modification with a view to increasing decentralization. A general examination of the proposal in fact leads to the conclusion that the programme has become more centralized and so again slightly more detached.

How does the Commission explain this development, which contrasts with the desire of the majority for greater decentralization?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 1998)

Article 9, which is common to the proposals for Decisions concerning the new education, training and youth programmes(1), stipulates that the Commission and the Member States shall ensure, as part of the implementation of the coordinated employment strategy, that there is complementarity between the activities of the programmes and Community action under the Structural Funds.

As regards the second part of the question concerning decentralisation, it should be noted that many actions under the current Socrates/Erasmus programme are already decentralised.

In its proposals for Socrates II, the Commission plans further decentralisation by having all mobility actions (student and teacher mobility) managed by the national agencies.

The Commission cannot agree therefore with the opinion expressed by the Honourable Member that the programme is becoming more centralised and more remote. On the contrary, the decentralised nature of the current Socrates/Erasmus programme will be further enhanced in its next phase.

(1) COM(98) 329, 330 and 331.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1910/98

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

(16 June 1998)

Subject: The European Spatial Development Perspective and regional policy

As is evident from the Commission's analytic studies, in particular "Europa 2000" and "Europa 2000+", and from its first report on economic and social cohesion (COM(96) 0542), and as has been corroborated subsequently by Parliament in its recent report A4-0206/98, the various Community policies (especially the CAP, the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, the trans-European networks, environmental policy, R & D policy and competition policy) in some cases have contradictory effects on the territorial distribution of social and economic activities, giving rise to uneven development within the Union. The Commission has stressed the need to develop a regional planning policy at EU level to ensure the complementarity and coherence of the various Community policies, with the aim of achieving harmonious, balanced and sustainable regional development in the Community, thus strengthening and improving economic and social cohesion and the Union's competitiveness. The first concrete step in this respect has been the initial official draft of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), adopted at the informal Council of EU regional planning ministers in Noordwijk in June 1997. This document represents the fruits of the consensus and cooperation among the Member States which have been obtained after many years of effort and negotiations.

Can the Commission state how far these guidelines have been taken into account, in particular those contained in the initial official draft of the project, in the context of the proposals for reforming the Structural Funds which were adopted by the Commission on 18 March 1998?

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

(15 July 1998)

The proposal for a Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, approved by the Commission on 18 March 1998(1), stipulates that "the Community, through the Funds, shall promote the harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities". Consistency between different Community policies is - as the Honourable Member stresses - an essential aspect of regional planning at European level, and Article 2(5) of the same proposal states that "the Commission and the Member States shall ensure that the operations of the Funds are consistent with other Community policies and operations".

Lastly, the measures which the Commission has proposed for implementation between 2000 and 2006 include a Community initiative on cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation, with a view to promoting harmonious and balanced European development and regional planning.

(1) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Spain from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Spain under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 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 E-2255/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in Portugal from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by Portugal under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 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 E-1697/98

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant

The closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000 is a crucial funding project in the interest of EU citizens' safety. Hitherto resources to overcome the problems caused by the Chernobyl reactors have been derived inter alia from TACIS appropriations granted to the Ukraine.

How much of the TACIS appropriations for1997 was targeted at projects seeking to close Chernobyl down - rather than to improve its condition - and have any appropriations been used on measures aimed at keeping the reactors in use?

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

(1 July 1998)

The Commission has allocated Tacis funds for the following projects directly related to the closure of Chernobyl:

- preparation of the decommissioning operations units 1-3 (ECU 1,5 million);

- environmental impact assessment of the Chernobyl decommissioning plan (ECU 0,04 million);

- assistance to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the implementation of the decommissioning of units 1-3 (ECU 5,5. million);

- design and construction of facilities aimed at the retrieval, sorting and processing of low and intermediate level waste resulting from the decommissioning of units 1-3 (ECU 33 million);

- design and construction of low and intermediate level waste repository (ECU 5,5 million);

- defining and initiating a business development agency in Slavutich/Chernobyl (ECU 0,35 million).

No Tacis funds aiming at continuing use of the reactors have been used.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2139/98

by Friedhelm Frischenschlager (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: Minority languages

1. Does the Commission consider that Article 126 of the EU Treaty should be recognized in principle and used generally as the legal basis for budget heading B3-1006 and in particular for the long-term subsidy to the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages?

2. What funds will be available to the Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages for the financial year 1998?

3. Does the Commission consider that special attention must be paid to the subject of lesser-used languages, in particular in view of the forthcoming enlargement to the east?

4. What practical steps are planned in this connection and what funding will be made available by the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

1. Budget line B3-1006 in support of regional and minority languages and cultures in the Community is the outcome of Parliament's constant support.

Article 126 of the EC Treaty stipulates that "the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education... while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity". Community action must also be aimed at "developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States". In effect the Commission's action in support of regional and minority languages is based on this article.

The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) was financed under Budget line B3-1006 in the framework of the action "Promoting and safeguarding regional and minority languages".

2. The European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages received Community funding in the amount ECU 742 900 for the period October 1997 to September 1998. For the period beginning in October 1998 the Commission has already received the EBLUL's draft plan of work and budget. Approval will depend on an examination of the situation of the general problem of budget lines without a legal basis.

3. The action "Promotion and safeguarding regional and minority languages and cultures" now being implemented by the Commission makes a very useful contribution to the language communities. The future enlargement of the Community to the central and eastern European countries will lead to a substantial increase in the number of minority and regional language communities. To this end, work to promote and safeguard the numerous minority languages spoken in these countries will help avoid potential conflicts that are always liable to flare up between the different language communities and will also help European citizens to become more active and responsible.

4. In the framework of the action "Promoting and safeguarding regional and minority languages and cultures" the Commission has launched the so-called Euromosaïc study to inventory the regional and minority language groups in the Community. It is planned to extend this study to the central and eastern European countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1724/98

by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Council Directive 85/374/EEC and proposals for amending this Directive in COM(97) 478

Will the Commission state whether it accepts that fluoride in water is considered a "movable" product under the terms of Directive 85/374/EEC(1) and in the text of the proposed amendments to this directive and is therefore subject to liability claims in the event of illness caused by fluoride in water?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

Under Article 2 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, any "movable" is to be considered a product for the purpose of the Directive. The only exceptions are primary agricultural products and game, unless they have undergone initial processing.

The Commission proposed on 1 October 1997 to amend Directive 85/374/EEC(2), so that primary agricultural products and game be considered products for the purposes of the Directive. This proposal follows the Parliament's recommendation to extend the Directive to primary agricultural products, in the context of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case(3).

The Directive does not include a definition of "movable". The interpretation of the Treaty and acts made under it are a matter for the Court of justice. Subject to this it is up to national legislation to state whether drinking water containing fluoride should be considered a product for the purposes of Article 2 of the Directive.

The Honourable Member may care to note the Camelford (United Kingdom) water supply case of 1988(4). Following delivery of 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate to a water treatment plant where it was deposited in the wrong tank, the public water supply for some 11 500 people became highly acidic (up to 3 000 times the permitted Community value). In a group action to claim damages for personal injuries it was argued that the water was a defective product under Part I "Product Liability" of the Consumer Protection Act of 1987. The water authority admitted liability and the issues were restricted to quantifying damages(5).

(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.

(2) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997.

(3) Resolution on the results of the temporary committee of inquiry into BSE, OJ C 85, 17.3.1997. See, also, the Commission's first bi-annual BSE follow-up Report, COM(98) 282 final.

(4) Report for the Commission on the application of Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (Study Contract No ETD/B5-3000/MI/06).

(5) A.B. and others v. South West Water Services Ltd. [1993] 2 W.L.R. 507, C.A.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2253/98

by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: The EAGGF Guarantee Section in the United Kingdom from 1986 to 1995

Can the Commission indicate the total amount received by the United Kingdom under the EAGGF Guarantee Section from 1986 to 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 E-1642/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the conditions imposed by the Commission concerning the granting of aid in the steel sector

1. On 19 October 1994 the Commission adopted a decision on Law No 481 of 3 August 1994, through which the Italian Government sought to speed up the restructuring of the steel sector. The Commission set out a series of conditions under which aid may be granted. State aid was subsequently granted in 30 cases. Did the Commission monitor compliance with the conditions (reduction in capacity, etc.)?

2. In some cases, Italian undertakings have been refused aid under Law No 481. What instruments are available to the Commission in order to verify that the undertakings concerned have not received aid by other means?

3. Does the Commission consider it appropriate that the public be informed whether and in what way the Member States have complied with the withholding of assent or with conditions attached to the Commission's approval of aid? Does the Commission take the view that more transparency would improve discipline as regards state aid in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

In connection with the application of Law No 481 of 3 August 1994 concerning plant closures in the private steel industry in Italy, the Commission received notification of 44 state aid cases pursuant to Article 4 of the former Steel Aid Code.

When the aforementioned Italian law was authorised, after verifying compliance with the Steel Aid Code, in particular with Article 4, the Commission required the Italian authorities to give it prior notification of individual cases of application of the law. The Commission decision stipulated that, in order to qualify for closure aid, firms must have been in production on average for at least one shift per day, i.e. at least eight hours per day, five days per week, for the whole of 1993 and up to February 1994, when Decree-Law No 103 was notified to the Commission.

The Commission authorised 34 cases, resulting in capacity reductions in excess of five million tonnes in hot-rolled products, and refused to grant authorisation in 10 other cases because the information available to it showed that, although the firms in question met the other conditions laid down in the Steel Aid Code, they had not been in regular production when they were closed.

The Italian authorities keep the Commission systematically informed of the closure process, which has resulted in the scrapping of all the steel production plants of the aid recipients. The information available to the Commission shows that the Italian firms which were refused aid have not received aid by other means.

With regard to the last point raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission has made considerable efforts in recent years to ensure that state aid administrative procedures are as transparent as possible in compliance with Community law. Where infringements of the rules come to its attention, the Commission adopts decisions which are published in full in the Official Journal and are usually accompanied by a press release.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Member States water supplies

Will the Commission ensure that the Member States may always impose stricter standards for their own water supplies than those adopted as common rules?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf on the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Community water legislation is based on Article 130s of the EC Treaty, thus setting minimum requirements. At the same time Article 130t of the EC Treaty states that measures adopted pursuant to Article 130s shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures. Such measures must be compatible with the EC Treaty, and in particular not discriminatory.

This is true for both the existing drinking water directive and the proposed new drinking water directive (Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption(1) and Commission proposal of 4 January 1995(2), Parliament's opinion of 12 December 1996, amended Commission proposal of 4 June 1997(3), common position adopted by Council on 19 December 1997).

Bearing in mind Articles 130s and 130t of the EC Treaty, the Council in its common position on the new drinking water directive specified in the preamble as follows:

".....

(18) Whereas Member States may set values for other additional parameters not included in Annex I where that is deemed necessary for the purpose of ensuring the quality of the production, distribution and inspection of water intended for human consumption.

(19) Whereas, when Member States deem it necessary to adopt standards more stringent than those set out in Annex I, Parts A and B, or standards for additional parameters not included in Annex I but necessary to protect human health, they must notify the Commission of those standards.

(20) Whereas Member States are bound, when introducing or maintaining more stringent protection measures, to respect the principles and rules of the EC Treaty, as they are interpreted by the Court of justice;"

Thus the Commission confirms that Member States are entitled to set stricter standards for their water supply systems (tap water) provided the principles mentioned above are respected. After ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam these provisions of the EC Treaty will not change. However, environmental legislation subject to Article 130s(1) will then be adopted under the co-decision procedure instead of the present co-operation procedure.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2) OJ C 131, 30.5.1995.

(3) OJ C 213, 15.7.1997.