ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1359/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 April 1998)

Subject: Restructuring of urban transport

The Greek Government has unveiled a programme for the reorganization and restructuring of urban transport in the Athens area. Can the Commission say whether this transport network is included in CSF funding plans and under which conditions it will contribute to this reorganization and the necessary investments?

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

(26 May 1998)

At its last meeting on 31 October 1997, the Monitoring Committee under the Community support framework for Greece approved the allocation of ECU 34 million to a pilot scheme to purchase 120 natural gas-powered buses and build a supply station.

The Commission has not yet taken a decision on this scheme. It will act once it has evaluated the feasibility study recently submitted by the Greek authorities and once the amendment of the CSF to incorporate the decisions taken by the Monitoring Committee on 31 October 1997 has been approved.

The Commission will ensure that any funding for this operation fits in with all the other measures essential to reorganising urban transport in the Athens area, so that any investment financed by the Commission can have its full impact.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Public capital investment programmes

Which public capital investment programmes in Member States are not counted against the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 1998)

Public sector borrowing requirement is a concept which is neither used in the European system of integrated economic accounts (ESA) nor as a criterion in the EC Treaty. Also, this concept is not harmonised within the Community due to difficulties in drawing the borderline for the inclusion of public enterprises into the public sector.

If the question, however, is meant to refer to the net borrowing of general government it concerns the well defined term in the ESA which is used as the deficit criterion in the EC Treaty. This latter concept comprises only institutional units producing non-market services and excludes public enterprises.

As a rule, investment programmes (i.e. gross fixed capital formation of the general government) are of a non-financial character and are therefore taken into account for the net borrowing of general government. In cases, however, where large public infrastructure programmes are developed with the help of the private sector, the accounting guidelines to record such operations are more complex and have to take due account of the specific conditions in which the investment is carried out. This applies foremost to aspects like the financing scheme, concession rights granted to the enterprise and the time dimension of these operations. If, for instance, instead of the government buying an asset and operating it, the government buys services from a private sector operator who built and pre-financed the investment, only the annual payments of the government to the enterprise should have an impact on the deficit of the general government.

In this context, Eurostat the statistical office of the Community, had recently to make specific accounting decisions concerning several investment programmes in different Member States, like the construction of the bridge between Sweden and Denmark, the bridge built over the Tagus river in Portugal, the private finance initiatives (PFI) in the United Kingdom and the pre-financing of roads in Germany and Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1749/98

by Rosemarie Wemheuer (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: European Road Safety Campaign

On 13 May 1998 the "European Road Safety Campaign": Think before you drive! 10 seconds ... that can save your life', supported by various automobile clubs, Toyota and the Commission, was presented at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. All members of the European Parliament received publicity folders on the subject.

1. What is the overall budget for this campaign?

2. What financial contribution is being paid by the sponsors, especially Toyota? What is the Commission contribution?

3. Who is the campaign aimed at?

4. What material is being used to conduct the campaign with (publicity folders, posters, advertisements etc.)? In what quantities were they produced?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 1998)

1. The total budget for the campaign is 1.3 MECU.

2. The Commission contribution of 50 % is 650 000 ECU. The remaining 50 % is financed by the organisers, and through them, the different motoring and touring clubs.

At the request of the Commission the organisers wrote to all major car producers with a manufacturing presence in the European Union inviting them to participate in the campaign. The minimum commitment for sponsorship was as follows:

- a campaign subscription of 10 000 ECU to cover administrative costs;

- the printing and distribution of campaign leaflets in numbers equivalent to 50 % of the total European annual sales for the manufacturer concerned;

- the printing and distribution of stickers in numbers equivalent to 50 % of the total European annual sales for the manufacturer concerned.

Only Toyota Motor Europe responded positively to this invitation. The Commission is advised that they have in fact exceeded the minimum commitment for sponsorship.

3. The campaign is aimed at all drivers and their passengers and has the purpose of contributing to efforts made by the Commission, Member State governments, motoring clubs, police forces, local authorities and the general public to reduce the terrible toll of 45 000 deaths and 16 million injuries caused annually by road accidents in the Community.

4. The campaign is managed by the motoring and touring clubs and therefore the materials used vary in each Member State. Basic materials are stickers, T-shirts, posters, computer mouse-mats and leaflets. The quantities vary but, for example, the initial print run for the stickers was 10 080 000 pieces, and for leaflets 1 300 000 pieces.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1322/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Development of the Barranco de Veneguera (Gran Canaria)

The Canary Islands Parliament has recently adopted a bye-law authorizing the urban development of the Barranco de Veneguera (Gran Canaria, Canary Islands), in spite of a Popular Legislative Initiative bearing about 50 000 signatures which calls for it to be included in the Law on Canary Island Nature Conservancy Areas as an area of nature conservancy.

The request for the Barranco de Veneguera to be included in the Nublo Countryside Park was prompted by the important zoological and botanical value of the area. Scientists regard Veneguera as the most important nature conservancy area for the tabaiba cardoon in Gran Canaria. They have identified 12 species endemic to Gran Canaria, and 34 to the Canaries archipelago. In other words, the area contains a striking example of the "habitat of thermo-Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush" protected by Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna(1).

All the evidence suggests, therefore, that the area should be included in the Canary Islands Nature Conservancy Area Network and the Natura 2000 Network.

Is the Commission familiar with the above situation?

Bearing in mind that the Canary Islands Government has not proposed to include it as an area in the Natura 2000 Network, does the Commission consider that the area should be so included, in view of its importance as representing a habitat protected by the Community Directive?

Does the Commission consider that the Barranco de Veneguera development plan should be subject to the environmental impact assessment required by Directive 85/337/EEC(2)?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The Commission had been unaware of these facts.

The "Roque del Nublo" site had already been put forward by Spain for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. Nevertheless, at the second seminar on the Macaronesia biogeographical region Spain undertook to reconsider the limits of the site. The Commission expects to receive the additional Spanish proposal on sites to include in the network of the Macaronesia biogeographical region.

The town planning activities are included in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment. Under Article 4(2) of the Directive projects included in Annex II must be subjected to an impact assessment if the Member States feel that their characteristics so require. It is thus up to the Spanish authorities, in the light of the nature, extent and location of the project at issue, to determine whether this is to be subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(30 March 1998)

Subject: Stamp issues in Euros

Of particular interest amongst the measures which will accompany the entry into force of the Euro is the issuing of postage stamps which, in all Member States, will replace current stamp issues.

Both users and collectors would like to know what the entry into force of the Euro will mean in this area.

Can the Commission tell me what is planned? Who will be responsible for issuing postage stamps, a task currently carried out at national level? What European proposals will there be in this area with a view to standardizing the designs featured in each issue?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

The introduction of the euro will necessitate a great many changes as the new currency is integrated quickly and efficiently into the economies of the participating Member States. Although the changeover will affect all areas of the economy, special care will be needed where services are offered to the general public. It is likely that postal services will also be affected. The national postal services will need to consider the consequences of the introduction of the euro for their sector and take strategic decisions as soon as possible to prepare for the changeover.

Postage stamps, whether they are regarded as a receipt for a pre-paid service, or hold fiduciary value like notes and coins, will need to be adapted to the euro. Where stamps currently carry a monetary value in a national currency, then it is clear that they will need to be replaced by stamps denominated in euro, at the latest by the end of the transition period (i.e. by the end of 2001). On the other hand, stamps that do not mention a monetary value (e.g. those labelled first or second class) should not need to be replaced.

These changes will have a number of implications. For example, the conversion of prices from the national currency to euro - as set out in the legal regulations and using the official conversion rate - is unlikely to give "sensible" or rounded prices. Postal operators will need to consider carefully the structure of their pricing policies in euro, to take account of these new "odd" prices. Moreover, the euro will bring a high degree of transparency to the pricing structures of different national - and cross-border - postal systems and expose services between Member States to more direct public scrutiny. This may lead to calls for greater efficiency.

While the introduction of the euro may have important implications for price transparency and require a number of other changes, there is no suggestion that the different national postal operators should or need to harmonise the design or presentation of stamps or seek to issue a single "European" stamp. The euro will not, in itself, affect the current arrangements under which the national operators make available stamps and operate postal services.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0693/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of operational programme for the tourist industry

In its answer to my Question No H-0813/96(1) concerning the implementation of the Greek operational programme for the tourist industry, the Commission pointed out the low take-up rate of the relevant appropriations and urged the Greek authorities to use up the remainder. Furthermore, it was awaiting the national authorities' final decisions and planning for the marinas and the integrated tourist development regions (ITDRs).

More than a year has passed since the Commission's answer and the operational programme expires on 31 December 1999. Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. what the current take-up rate is for the operational programme for the tourist industry,

2. whether the locations for setting up the ITDRs have been selected and what they are,

3. whether it has been decided what type of project will receive funding, and

4. whether funding will be provided for projects on public land only or on privately owned land as well?

Supplementary answer

given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1998)

The Greek operational programme for tourism and culture, as amended on 7 December 1997, contains commitment appropriations for 1995-1997 totalling ECU 55.1 million, of which ECU 19.5 million is for the tourism sub-programme. So far, all commitments and payments programmed up to the end of 1997 have been implemented.

At the end of February 1998, public expenditure on the tourism sub-programme accounted for 24.33 % of the total.

The region of Messinia was selected as an ITDR (integrated tourist development region). The expenditure to be taken into account is that set out in Greek Law No 1892/90. This ITDR will be carried out on private property.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament No 4-489 (October 1996).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1025/98

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Number of inspections in the road haulage industry

Since 1988 the European Union has laid down a minimum number of inspections for the road haulage industry in the Member States both at roadside and in the form of visits to premises. The Commission's latest report on inspections concerning the application of social provisions in the road transport sector reveals that the actual number of inspections in the EU Member States differs very widely. For example, in Sweden and Portugal only 13 % and 15 % respectively of the minimum number of inspections is achieved. No statistical data at all is available on inspections from Italy, Austria and Greece. Conversely, four times as many inspections are carried out in Germany as are required under Community law, including a high percentage of visits to premises.

The Commission:

1. What action is it taking against the failure to comply with the minimum number of inspections and the absence of statistical data on inspections in the above Member States?

2. Does it share the view that the continuing wide variation in the number of inspections leads to distortions of competition on the internal market?

3. What action is it proposing in order to bring the number of inspections in the Member States into line with the share of the national road haulage industry in the European-wide carriage?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission's 18th Report on the implementation in 1993-1994 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport(1)indicates which countries did not meet the stipulated proportion of annual checks required, and also sets out the reasons why the standard does not appear to have been attained.

Austria, Sweden and Finland had just become part of the European Economic Area in 1994 and were in the process of adjusting their enforcement agencies to apply this part of the common transport policy. The Commission is therefore prepared to recognise that a short period of adjustment is necessary.

Both Belgium and Portugal returned incomplete statistics, which made it difficult to assess accurately to what extent they had complied with the minimum percentage of checks required. The Commission has invited both Member States to provide more comprehensive data as their current statistics may not give a true picture of enforcement efforts. It has strongly recommended that a lead ministry be nominated to co-ordinate the presentation of these statistics. The Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Greece and Italy for not providing the required information.

The Commission is not in favour of linking the mandatory minimum fixed percentage of checks for each Member State to the extent to which their transport industry engages in international transport since the Regulation also covers domestic transport. Therefore, that approach would not constitute a sound basis for the enforcement effort required.

(1) COM(97) 698 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: ORF licence fee

A campaign has recently been launched in Austria against persons watching television at home without a licence.

As the law stands in Austria all households in which there is a television set capable of receiving programmes are obliged to apply for a radio/television permit and, for as long as they retain the set, to pay a fee; failure to do is subject to a fine.

As set out in Article 29 of the Federal Law on the Responsibilities and Constitution of the Austrian Broadcasting Authority (ORF), this fee is payable regardless of the frequency or quality of the programmes or their reception.

However, there are some parts of Austria where it is impossible to receive ORF. Yet, if the Austrian citizens affected want to receive programmes with a satellite dish they, too, are obliged by Austrian law to pay this fee.

What is the Commission's view of the lawfulness of this measure, and how can it be reconciled with EU rules on competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The "Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States" which it was agreed in Amsterdam to annexe to the EC Treaty confirms the competence of the Member States to define the public service remit of the broadcasting organisations and to organise the funding. Thus, it is not within the Commission's competence to assess the national provisions concerning national broadcasting licence fees.

The competition rules of the EC Treaty serve to guarantee fair competition between the undertakings of the Community and apply in principle only if trade within the Community is actually or potentially affected. However, the competition rules of the Community do not apply in the case of a possible discrimination against individuals under national tax or licence provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Zakynthos Marine Park

The establishment of the Zakynthos National Marine Park is an environmental project of vital importance since it is intended to protect a rare animal species, the Caretta Caretta marine turtle. The Greek authorities have been promising to set up the park since 1991, but the relevant Presidential Decree has not yet been signed.

This delay may prove catastrophic for the survival of Caretta Caretta, because the beaches on which it reproduces are under pressure from unauthorized tourist development projects, illegal fishing, pollution from effluents, the illegal presence of speed boats and other human activities.

Given that the marine turtle is protected by international and Community law - both of which are being violated by Greece - , and notably the Treaty of Bern (protection of threatened species and biotopes) and Directive 92/43/EEC(1) (Caretta Caretta is a protected species under Annexes II and IV of the Directive), will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to secure the establishment of this marine park, bearing in mind that ECU 5.5 million in Community funds have been allocated to this project?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 1998)

The Commission has been keeping a close eye on the situation with regard to adoption of the presidential decree creating the Zakynthos National Marine Park. It examined the draft decree, notified by the Greek authorities in July 1997. The final text was due to be adopted at the end of March 1998. However, the Commission, concerned about the delay in creating the marine park, will again contact the Greek authorities and draw their attention to the urgent need to take suitable steps to protect the area.

The Commission is also monitoring other practical measures taken to protect the breeding grounds of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Laganas Bay. An on-site assessment of the situation is scheduled for July 1998. In the light of new information obtained during the visit, the Commission will decide what should be done next to ensure that the species is properly protected in the Zakynthos area.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1580/98

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

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Slate industry and system of generalized preferences

According to the answer by Commissioner Leon Brittan to by previous Written Questions Nos. E-4009/97 and E-4011/97(1), finished slate is classified as a non-sensitive product under the system of generalized preferences for developing countries, which means that EU imports of this product are exempt from customs duties. According to the answer, the Commission does not intend to revise this classification before the existing system of generalized preferences expires on 31 December 1998.

Will the Commission say which developing countries export slate to the EU and give details of the volume of exports for each of them?

Will the Commission say what criteria were used in deciding to classify slate as a non-sensitive product for the purposes of the system of preferences referred to above?

Will the Commission say what general criteria it uses for classifying products as non-sensitive for the purposes of the system of preferences referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 1998)

Details of developing countries' slate exports will be sent to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

Sensitivity classification under the GSP is based on the product sensitivity levels for the Community market established during the Uruguay Round negotiations.

(1) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 56.