ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) , Otto von Habsburg (PPE) , Charles Goerens (ELDR) , Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) , Claudia Roth (V) , Wilmya Zimmermann (PSE) and Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Visa requirement for Bulgaria and Romania

1. How, in the Council's opinion, can the strategy for bringing Bulgaria and Romania closer to the European Union be reconciled with the visa requirement for their nationals, seeing that two EU institutions, the European Parliament and the Commission, have argued for the removal of these countries from the common list compiled pursuant to Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community and that the European Parliament will shortly be reaffirming this position?

2. What are the Council's reason for refusing to withdraw the visa requirement in respect of these countries?

3. Is the Council aware of the sometimes unreasonable conditions under which visas are issued to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals for entry into a Member Sate of the EU? Does the Council intend to ease the requirements and conditions for the issue of such visas and to abolish them in the foreseeable future?

4. Does the Council regard the proportion of Roma people in the two countries as an obstacle to the removal of the latter from the common list? If so, why?

Reply

(7/8 December 1998)

Currently there is no Commission proposal before the Council to remove Bulgaria and Romania from the list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external frontiers of the Member States.

The Council is not aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Members concerning the granting of visas. Currently, the requirements and conditions laid down for granting visas are not harmonised at Community level.

It must be pointed out that visa policy does not distinguish between ethnic groups but is based on citizenship of the countries in question.

As part of its strategy to approximate the policies of the countries applying for accession to those of the European Union on visas, the Council has, since the Luxembourg Presidency, organised periodic meetings between the Member States, the Commission and those countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/98

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

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Hunting of migratory birds in France

The French National Assembly recently decided to extend the hunting season for migratory birds. In doing so, it is knowingly flouting European rules and it is presenting its blatant disregard for the rules in force as proof that France can act independently with regard to European rules.

1. Has the Commission already responded to this disregard for European rules and, if so, how? Or is it planning to do so and, if so, how and when?

2. In its opinion, if action is taken before the European Court of Justice which could result in penalty payments being imposed on France, what chances of success does such action have, how long would the proceedings take and how long would it take for such penalties to be paid?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

1. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Oral Question H-726/98 by Mr Elliott(1).

2. Articles 169 and 171 of the EC Treaty deal with the procedure concerning States which fail to fulfil their obligations. The Court of Justice can only impose the penalty payments stipulated by Article 171 in its second judgment, in which it recognises that a Member State has failed to comply with its first judgment.

If, following the reasoned opinion mentioned in the preceding point, and having examined the French reply, the Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice, it would fall to the latter to give a ruling in its own time. This tends to take between one and two years.

If the Court were to find that France had failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of the hunting season for wild birds, and if France failed to comply with that judgment, the Commission could institute proceedings on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. Like the Article 169 procedure, this involves a preliminary phase (formal notice, reasoned opinion) and a litigation phase before the Court of Justice. Experience shows that, from start to finish, this can take several years.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Pigmeat sector

Is the Commission aware of the current disastrous situation in the pigmeat sector and has the Commission made any proposals which might help to avoid widespread bankruptcies in the industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The Commission is well aware that after two good years of exceptionally high pigmeat market prices, European pig farmers have considerably increased their production for 1998, which has inevitably been followed by lower market prices. There was a considerable increase in production already in 1997, which was blanketed by the removal of a large amount of pigs from the markets due to classical swine fever. The price drop in a situation of increased production is a typical cyclical phenomenon of pig production. On the other hand the lower prices will enhance consumption.

The Commission has followed the situation closely and has already reacted by introducing export refunds for carcasses and bone-in cuts on 14 May 1998. Certain boneless cuts were added to the list of eligible products for export refunds on 3 August 1998 and an increase to the refund levels was made.

The exports to third countries have developed quite well. Total exports to third countries increased in 1997 to an all time high of 1,07 million tonnes, of which 78 % was possible without export refunds. During last two years the Community increased pigmeat exports to Eastern Europe and Russia by 25 % and exports to South East Asia (including Japan) increased by 51 % during the same period. The export figures for the first quarter of 1998 suggest a further increase of exports.

The Commission is willing to consider further measures to support the market if necessary and possible, but it can do little about the basic problem of increased production. It is up to farmers to decide whether they will adapt production and thereby improve the market price.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3494/98 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Recognition of qualifications by Member States



Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0138



WRITTEN QUESTION P-3494/98 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council (13 November 1998) Subject: Recognition of qualifications by Member States What efforts is the Council making to harmonise recognition of workers' qualifications, between Member States, especially in terms of the amount of proof required by the Member States to validate the migrant workers' qualifications? Reply (25 January 1999) At the present time there is no harmonisation of the proofs required by the Member States to validate migrant workers' qualifications. Nevertheless, the Council would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, within the European Commission, the Coordinators' Group on the Recognition of Diplomas, made up of representatives of the Member States, recently adopted a Code of Conduct intended to ensure a harmonised assessment of proofs by the coordinators responsible for facilitating the implementation of the Directives on the recognition of professional qualifications. The aim is to avoid administrative formalities being used as an indirect obstacle to the free movement of persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/98

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Postal services

Can the Commission indicate when it will be in a position to inform Parliament of proposals relating to the postal sector and if those proposals will be in line with Parliament's often stated position regarding the liberalisation of Postal Services?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

Article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 97/67/EC of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market for Community postal services and on the improvement of quality of service(1) provides that the Commission shall put forward a proposal for a Directive on the further gradual and controlled liberalisation of the postal-services market before the end of 1998.

Since that proposal must take place after a re-examination of this sector, it is necessary for the Commission already to have received the conclusions of studies currently in progress on the impact of the liberalising of certain postal services. Since these must have been completed towards the end of October 1998, the Commission could thus be in a position to send its proposal to Parliament towards the end of this year.

Although at this stage the Commission cannot reveal the content of its future proposal, more particularly since it does not have in its possession the result of the studies currently taking place, it may nevertheless assure the Honourable Member that it will take the fullest account possible of the position previously adopted by Parliament on this matter.

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3727/98

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Social dumping as a possible motive for Ericsson's transfer of operations from Norrköping to Scotland

In the debate that has followed Ericsson's decision to move certain manufacturing activities from Norrköping to Scotland, it has emerged that one cost-related reason for the move could have been that employees' social rights are of a lower standard at the Scottish plant, notably as regards compliance with the rules on working time. As a general rule, it should be in the Commission's interest to take action against social dumping so as to prevent unfair competition in the internal market.

In view of this, will the Commission state whether it has carried out, or intends to carry out, investigations to establish whether Ericsson's transfer of operations from Norrköping to Scotland was a case of social dumping and explain what steps it is preparing to take to prevent differences in the way the working time directive is applied from contributing to unfair competition between Member States?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/98

by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Protection of Kosovo's heritage

The current fighting in Kosovo is not without its consequences for the country's cultural heritage, whether civil, religious, Muslim or orthodox.

Can the Commission say whether it envisages taking measures to protect Kosovo's heritage and working with UNESCO to raise the awareness of the international community and promote the development of a consensus between two communities which each have a rich cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about the destructive consequences that the conflict in Kosovo had on its civil and religious cultural heritage.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Community is very much involved in the international efforts to reconcile the two communities. However, the Commission does not have the competence to take any measures for the protection of Kosovo's cultural heritage.

The Commission would be willing to consider co-operation with the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation (Unesco), should this organisation undertake an initiative concerning the matter raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/98

by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Council

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Eco-audit

1. The eco-audit which has existed in the EU since 29 June 1993 has so far been carried out by about 1960 undertakings. To what extent was Council Regulation (EEC) 1836/93(1) taken into account in the European Parliament's new buildings in Brussels (Rue Wiertz) and Strasbourg?

2. What potential water and energy savings were taken into account in the two new buildings, and what technical means were used to achieve them?

3. What potential energy savings did the installation of solar cell units make possible?

4. What waste avoidance strategies has the European Parliament's administration adopted or implemented for Parliament's buildings?

Reply

(25 January 1999)

The Council considers it is for the European Parliament to reply to the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 168, 10.7.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Programmes and projects in the field of transport in Catalonia

Bearing in mind the policy of transparency pursued by the Commission in relation to its spending, can the Commission say what projects implemented in Catalonia benefitted from each type of aid available in the area of transport for the period 1994-1999?

Can the Commission further specify what amounts were finally allocated to each of the above projects?

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

(18 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3033/98

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Accusations by Alitalia of an abuse of office to further private interests in the Malpensa affair

On 20 September 1998 Alitalia ran an advertisement in a number of Italian daily newspapers which bore the headline "To stop Malpensa from opening some people are playing dirty tricks", and which went on to allege that "they want to cancel everything because of pressure from a number of international airlines seeking to protect their own economic interests".

Alitalia's criticisms are clearly directed at the Commission's decision which ruled that the Burlando decree contravened Community law. Alitalia claims the Commission has acted unlawfully (hence the "dirty tricks") in order to protect "the economic interests of a number of international airlines".

What action, including legal action, does the Commission intend to take in response to these allegations, which imply that the Commission's decision in the Malpensa affair arose from an abuse of office to further private interests, and that this involved other crimes such as acts of corruption etc.?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

In its decision of 16 September 1998, the Commission addressed the substantive issues of discrimination and lack of proportionality posed by the air traffic distribution rules then intended for use by the Italian government. This decision was based on Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes(1). The intervention of the Commission in the Malpensa case was exclusively motivated by the need to ensure that Community law is respected. That is the principle applied by the Commission at all times and in all cases. Unfounded allegations will not distract the Commission from fulfilling that duty.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2673/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Assistance to applicant countries as regards external border checks

It has been repeatedly stressed that, if they are to qualify for membership, applicant countries must take over the acquis communautaire and hence the EU standards governing external border checks. The effectiveness of the applicant countries' border policing is currently attracting increasingly voluble criticism, and the doubts whether the above-mentioned criterion is being fulfilled are mounting. That was why, when it addressed Parliament in Strasbourg on 15 July 1998, the Presidency-in-Office of the Council expressly called on the Commission to seek ways of helping the applicant countries to secure their borders, pointing out that the external borders of the 11 countries in question, placed end to end, were 6 600 km long and it was necessary to comprehend that order of magnitude.

1. What weaknesses does the Presidency see in the external border checks and how serious a problem does it consider them to be?

2. What specific forms of help is the Council proposing to offer?

3. How much funding is it envisaging, and which budget headings should be used to provide it?

4. How can such aid be justified, given that other Member States have recently had to rely solely on their own resources in order to meet the Schengen criteria, even though, as far as Austria on its own is concerned - to name but one example - the external border as defined for Schengen purposes is 2 400 km long?

Reply

(18/19 January 1999)

The Council is aware of the difficulties raised by the Honourable Member concerning the effectiveness of applicant countries' border checks. It is clearly in the interest of the European Union to ensure that countries applying for membership apply the same standards as the Member States, as indicated in the Union's position communicated to the applicant countries in March 1998 at the opening of the accession process and accession negotiations. To this end, a seminar which a number of applicant countries were invited to take part in was organised in October 1998. This seminar was the first of a series of events designed to give all the applicant countries the opportunity of transposing into their legislation the major provisions regarding border checks, in stages if necessary, but in any event before accession. Under the ODYSSEUS programme, several projects involving cooperation and the exchange of information on external borders with the applicant countries have been adopted. In addition, the areas of Justice and Home Affairs are included among the priorities identified in the accession partnerships, adopted in March, and among the twinning arrangements established between Member States' administrations and those of the applicant countries.

The Council is not in a position to reply to Questions 2 and 3 put by the Honourable Member, as they fall within the competence of the Commission in the framework of the implementation of the PHARE programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2200/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Impact of the judgment in Case C-106/96

Does the Commission believe that the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (Case C-106/96) annuls projects co-financed by the European Union concerning:

- action by NGOs to assist developing countries?

- Community participation in action to combat anti-personnel mines?

- the European initiative for democracy and the defence of human rights?

If the impact on these projects does indeed prove harmful, what action does the Commission intend to take to offset or redress it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1998)

The Commission has taken a precautionary measure in response to the ruling by the Court of Justice that only in the case of non-significant action does Community expenditure not require the prior adoption of an act of secondary legislation.

As guardian of the correct application of Community legislation, the Commission could not ignore the Court's judgment. Given its responsibility for implementing the budget, it therefore launched a comprehensive study of all headings in the 1998 budget that were apparently without legal basis, to check whether it could continue to implement them with complete confidence as to their legality. It has now completed these checks and its findings as regards the areas to which the Honourable Member refers are as follows.

On 17 July 1998 the Council adopted the basic regulations for budget heading B7-6000"Community contribution towards schemes concerning developing countries carried out by non-governmental organizations" and B7-643"Decentralized cooperation in the developing countries"(1), with the result that their implementation may be resumed immediately.

In the case of Item B7-661"Community participation in action concerning anti-personnel mines", the Commission considers that the majority of the activities in this field can be implemented on the basis of specific regulations (one on rehabilitation and reconstruction of developing countries, one on humanitarian aid and one on action in the field of aid to displaced persons in developing countries in America and Asia).

In addition, an ad hoc agreement was reached with the budgetary authority at the Budget Council on 17 July 1998 for all operations concerning human rights and democracy, including those financed through Article B7-702"Human rights and democracy in the developing countries".

This made it possible to continue implementing the measures referred to by the Honourable Member under the 1998 budget after a temporary interruption.

As regards future budgets, at the Budget Council of 17 July 1998 Parliament, the Council and the Commission were also able to reach a general agreement resolving the problems of legal bases in the implementation of the budget. This will help to prevent a recurrence of the sort of differences of opinion that have led to the current situation.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Infringement of the Directive on the award of public service contracts

With reference to my earlier question E-4217/97(1), the Commission's reply of 16 February 1998 and DG XV's note No 4833, addressed to the leaders of the minority parties on Mantua town council, which announces the Commission's intention to take no further action on their complaint in view of the information supplied by the Italian Government, could the Commission state whether:

1. it is aware of the successive petitions lodged by the leader of the opposition on the town council with a view to precipitating further inquiries?

2. on the basis of the facts alleged in those successive statements, it agrees that the information provided by the Government is incomplete and inaccurate?

3. it agrees that it would be reprehensible to condone a substantive infringement of Directive 92/50(2), which might set a regrettable precedent as regards the need for strict compliance with the rules governing the award of public service contracts?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

1. The Commission has examined the letter it received from the opposition councillors on Mantua town council in response to the communication announcing its intention to take no further action on this affair.

2. After studying the above-mentioned letter in detail, the Commission did not feel that it contained any convincing new information which might cast doubt on the statements made by the Italian authorities.

3. The Commission felt that there were no grounds for establishing the existence of alleged infringements of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(3), and therefore decided on 7 October 1998 that no further action would be taken.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.