ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3543/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Sale of the Maccarese farm

The large Maccarese farm just outside Rome, hitherto owned by a public company, Iritecna, is about to be put up for sale. Offers are being considered from a number of potential buyers, including the Benetton Group, which, it is thought, may be intending to use the property for public relations purposes or at any rate not for farming. Some local agricultural cooperatives and the farm's present work-force have also expressed an interest in buying the land, and the local authorities have therefore been asked to take steps to enable them, should they so decide, to exercise their right of pre-emption.

In the light of the foregoing:

1. Does the Commission not believe that local agricultural production, already in difficulty, could be severely hit by the change of ownership of the farm?

2. Are there any Directives or acts which allow farm workers to exercise a right of pre-emption in such cases, bearing in mind that they may be in danger of losing their jobs?

3. What is the Commission's general view of the matter?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Under Article 222, the EC Treaty does not in any way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. There are no Directives or other acts in Community law containing provisions allowing agricultural cooperatives or workers to exercise a right of pre-emption when the holding on which they work is sold. Any provisions establishing such a right for the above entities, to which the Honourable Member refers, would thus be governed exclusively by national law.

The Commission may not therefore demand the application of a provision establishing a right of pre-emption on the sale of the Maccarese farm.

From a more general point of view, the Commission may not give an opinion on this matter in the absence of specific elements on which it would be called to give an opinion under the terms of the applicable legal provisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/98

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Repercussions of the legislation in force in the Czech Republic on the assessment of its application for accession

To date, the infringements of human rights committed by expelling citizens of various nationalities from Czechoslovakia after the end of the Second World War have not been remedied. Many of those people are still alive. Pursuant to decrees issued by the President of the Republic and other legislation, in 1945 and 1946 all the property owned by certain people, mostly Germans and Hungarians, was expropriated. Although the adverse effects of this situation continue to be felt, the provisions ordaining this expropriation are still enshrined in the legal order of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic persists in the view that the Law of 8 May 1946, which confers immunity from criminal proceedings with regard to the excesses committed in connection with that expulsion, is still in force.

Does the Commission believe that the fact that basic human and civil rights are or are not infringed must affect the way in which the European Union views the application of the Czech Republic for accession to the European Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3626/98, E-3628/98 and E-3629/98 given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 1999)

The accession negotiations concern the future membership of the Czech Republic in the Union and its acceptance of Community rules ("the acquis").

Property ownership is not as such part of the acquis. Article 222 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Treaty in no way prejudices Member States' rules governing the system of property ownership. The Commission, therefore, considers the questions raised by the Honourable Member a bilateral issue between Germany and the Czech Republic.

At the same time, the acquis contains a number of basic freedoms - such as the free movement of people and the freedom movement of establishment - that will apply in the future equally to citizens of new and old Member States. The application of these rights by the Czech Republic should ease the solution of the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2915/98

by Jean Baggioni (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Reducing the dependency of islands with regard to energy

In view of the geographical separation caused by the sea and the limited nature of available natural and human resources, can the Commission say whether it has any plans in the short term to reduce rapidly the dependence of islands with regard to energy by developing endogenous, alternative and renewable forms of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal or hydro-electric power?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

The promotion of developing renewable forms of energy is one of the priority actions under European energy policy. The Commission recently adopted a White Paper on the subject(1).

Island regions are among the main locations for renewable forms of energy within the Community. At the same time traditional forms of energy are more costly there than on the continent and this is why renewable forms of energy will in such regions be competitive sooner than elsewhere. Furthermore, the new process of gradual liberalisation of the internal energy market will encourage autonomous energy production.

In the Commission's opinion it is incumbent upon the authorities and economic agents in island regions to make optimum use of these new opportunities to make the islands more autonomous in terms of energy while at the same time offering opportunities for economic development, job creation and improvement of the environment.

The Commission can support such efforts to promote renewable forms of energy in the framework of structural funds as virtually all islands are covered by objectives 1 or 5b. In this context the Commission intends to improve information for and raise the awareness of the national and regional authorities concerned with regard to the manifold benefits of energy management. Moreover, several programmes for energy efficiency (SAVE), renewable forms of energy (Altener) and innovative powerful technologies (Thermie) are contributing towards achieving these objectives. For instance, under the SAVE programme 15 local and regional agencies for energy management have been set up in island regions. One of the main tasks of these agencies is to promote renewable forms of energy at local level.

(1) COM(97) 599 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3990/98

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Participation by European citizens in elections to the European Parliament in Member States whose nationality they do not possess

In his answer to my Written Question E-3595/96(1) Commissioner Monti said that the information requested (my Written Question E-3314/95)(2) was still being collected in the Member States. The activities also had been extended to include data on the first European Parliament elections in Sweden, Austria and Finland in the report to Parliament and the Council.

Does the Commission now possess the statistics requested, broken down by nationality and by Member State?

What percentage of the persons in questions exercised their right to vote?

Has there been a previous report to Parliament and the Council? if so, where is it published?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

All the information available to the Commission has been published in the report of 7 January 1998 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 93/109/EC(3).

(1) OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 28.

(2) OJ C 91, 27.3.1996, p. 58.

(3) COM(97) 731 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3450/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Removal of obstacles to trade

With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation (EC) creating a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene in order to remove certain obstacles to trade (COM(97) 619 final - 97/0330 CNS)(1), will the Commission say why the proposal should be restricted to the free movement of goods instead of also including the other three freedoms which are features of the internal market, i.e. the free movement of services, capital and persons?

Answer by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1999)

The honourable Member is certainly aware that the Community has had to deal with serious disruptions to the free movement of goods. These disruptions have been pointed out by Parliament on numerous occasions - the honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-2254/93 by Mrs Domingo Segarra(2), E-1477/95 by Mr Cabezon Alonso and others(3), E-2023/97 by Mr Gasoliba i Böhm and others(4) and E-3592/97 by Mr Macartney(5) - and were the subject of a Court of Justice ruling on 9 December 1997 in case C-265/95.

Against this background, the Amsterdam European Council of 16 and 17 June 1997 requested the Commission "to examine ways and means of guaranteeing in an effective manner the free movement of goods, including the possibility of imposing sanctions on Member States" and asked it to submit relevant proposals. The Commission provided a prompt response to this specific request from the European Council with its proposal for a Council Regulation creating a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene in order to remove certain obstacles to trade(6).

(1) OJ C 10, 15.1.1998, p. 14.

(2) OJ C 300, 27.10.1994.

(3) OJ C 230, 4.9.1995.

(4) OJ C 76, 11.3.1998.

(5) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998.

(6) OJ C 10, 15.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/98

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Further funding of the ECDP (European Cities on Drugs Policy)

The ECDP is an organisation currently consisting of 31 towns and regions which have united on the basis of what is known as the 1990 Frankfurt Resolution with a view to pursuing a pragmatic drugs policy which transcends party political boundaries.

In early July, this organisation was informed that the European Commission will not be supporting its activities again until January 1999 at the very earliest.

1. Will the EU programme be continued after 1999?

2. If so, in what form will it be continued?

3. If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

The Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence (1996-2000) will continue to run until 31 December 2000 (Decision 102/97/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1996). Priorities for the year 2000 will therefore also be fixed within the framework of a work programme.

As regards the 1999 project selection round, the Commission submitted to the programme committee at its meeting on 21 January 1999 a list of projects selected for possible support from among the 187 project proposals received.

The final decision on the projects selected for support in 1999 will be taken in the period following this meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3596/98

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Independence of the European Central Bank

Recent opinion surveys in the countries taking part in monetary union confirm increased public confidence in the single European currency, thanks not least to the efforts that have been made to attain and comply with the convergence criteria - in particular, price stability.

Pursuant to Article 107 of the EC Treaty, the governments of the Member States have undertaken to respect the independence of the European Central Bank and the national central banks and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies in the performance of their tasks. This independence is the guarantee of the principal objective of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB): the maintenance of price stability. Accordingly, the shaping of currency and monetary policy is the sole responsibility of the appropriate decision-making bodies of the ESCB.

In view of recent discussions, how does the Commission envisage ensuring compliance in the future with the relevant Treaty provisions so as to safeguard the independence of the ESCB?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 1998)

As guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission attaches the greatest importance to the respect of the Treaty provisions relating to the independence of central banks. The Commission will monitor the strict respect of these provisions in order to avoid any infringement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Procedures for registering motor vehicles in the Member States

1. Does the Commission monitor the procedures for registering vehicles in the Member States in order to ensure that these procedures do not constitute unnecessary or unfair barriers to the freedom of movement and the single market in cars and other vehicles?

2. Is the Commission satisfied with the procedures employed by the Member States, in particular the UK?

3. Does the Commission have any further comment to make on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

Whenever the Commission receives a complaint backed up by evidence concerning a possible infringement of Community law by a Member State, it conducts an investigation. As regards the registration of motor vehicles, it acts in accordance with its interpretative communication on procedures for the type-approval and registration of vehicles previously registered in another Member State (96/C 143/04)(1).

The Commission has received complaints about UK regulations on single vehicle approval which suggest that they may contravene Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty. It is currently liaising with the UK authorities with a view to clarifying the exact scope of the regulations and ascertaining to what extent they are justified.

(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3970/98

by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Noise pollution and roads

The Commission Green Paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final) tackled the problem of road traffic noise at Community level. It can be concluded from the said document that the European Union funds the building of roads which comply with the highest possible environmental and safety standards from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the budget heading for trans-European networks.

Will the Commission say whether this Green Paper has since taken the form of a legal text of any kind to protect citizens exposed to noise pollution from road traffic on a given thoroughfare?

If not, do any standards exist at European level requiring Member States to use porous asphalt or to erect noise protection walls on their domestic road networks?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

Since the adoption of the green paper on future noise policy, the Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive on noise from outdoor equipment(1). The Parliament approved the proposal without amendments in May 1998, and the German Presidency is aiming to reach a common position in the Council in June.

Furthermore, in the light of the response to the green paper, the Commission has started work on a framework directive on environmental noise, in close collaboration with experts from Member States, industry, non-governmental organisations and local authorities.

There are no existing Community standards requiring Member States to use porous asphalt nor to erect noise protection barriers on their domestic road networks. Nor is it envisaged that future Community legislation will prescribe specific solutions of this kind, as this in the view of the Commission would not be compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.

(1) COM(98) 46 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/98

by Gisèle Moreau (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Applicability of Regulation 1408/71 on the transfer of acquired rights

I have been approached by an Italian citizen residing in Turin who paid 102 quarters of pension contributions in Italy ("Fondo Pensioni Ferroneri dello Stato") and 78 quarters in France (CRAV). He has been told that Regulation 1408/71 does not apply in his particular case. At a time when the Commission is rightly proposing to extend Regulation 1408/71(1) to cover residents of third countries legally residing in a Member State, is it also prepared to take action to ensure that Regulation 1408/71 applies to all citizens of the European Union, regardless of their social security scheme?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1998)

Regulation No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998(2) extends the scope of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community(3) and of Regulation (EEC) 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1408/71(4) to special schemes for civil servants, and will enter into force on 25 October 1998.

Hence, as from 29 June 1998, the party concerned may rely on the provisions of Article 51a of this Regulation in aggregating periods of insurance under the special scheme for civil servants in Italy and the general scheme in France. In effect, although the "Ferrovie dello Stato" were privatised on 1 January 1993, the insurance scheme remains basically the same, i.e. it is still under the aegis of the Ministry of the Treasury.

It seems that the question concerns the acquisition of rights to the Italian retirement pension. If the interested party aggregates periods of insurance in Italy and in France he will of course be entitled to the Italian retirement pension, but the pro rata amount will be calculated under the general scheme, since he has not contributed to the special scheme for civil servants for the entire 35-year period.

On the other hand, he should be entitled to an old-age pension under the special scheme for Italian civil servants since he paid contributions under this scheme for 25 years and five months.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998.

(3) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(4) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/98

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Stopping vessels' fishing activities permanently

Article 8(2) of Regulation No 3699/93(1) of 21 December 1993 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products, sets out the measures to stop vessels' fishing activities permanently, and further stipulates that for vessels of less than 25 gross registered tonnes only the scrapping of the vessel may qualify for official aid.

This implies that vessels of great ethnological, historical or artistic interest should be destroyed indiscriminately - a practice already applied to vessels operating off the coasts of the Balearic Islands and Catalonia - despite the fact that they could remain seaworthy and continue to sail, whilst undertaking not to engage further in fishing activities.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to make the aforementioned regulations more flexible, so that stopping vessels' activities permanently becomes just one of a number of equally viable options and a suitable further use can be found for those fishing vessels seeking to cease operations under this procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products(2), assistance from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) for the cessation of fishing can be paid in respect of fishing vessels of less than 25 gross registered tonnes only when the vessel is scrapped. However in certain individual cases, when a vessel is clearly of interest as part of the national heritage, its transfer to a museum may be regarded as scrapping.

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member concerning the possible loss of old traditional fishing vessels but does not envisage any amendment to the regulation in force before the new programming period for the Structural Funds.

However, the Commission would point out that it will shortly resubmit a proposal for an implementing regulation which will specify the exact scope of structural assistance in the fisheries sector for the period 2000-2006.

(1) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4034/98

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

(8 January 1999)

Subject: Support for extensive farming

1. What programmes are available in the European Union to support extensive farming?

2. Are there any examples of support for projects concerned with flow pen systems for laying hens and, if so, what projects, when were they carried out and what was the level of EU funding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 1999)

1. The common agricultural policy plays an important role in supporting marginal areas which are frequently characterised by extensive farming methods. Livestock premiums and, to a certain extent, compensatory allowances for farmers in less-favoured areas contribute significantly towards ensuring the viability and continuation of farming in such areas. The common organisation of markets specifically includes an additional extensification premium for cattle herds with a maximum density of 1,4 livestock units (LUs) per hectare, as well as the requirement for a maximum density of 2,0 LUs per hectare for premiums to be granted. However, particularly under agri-environmental programmes (Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside(1)) Member States are encouraged to devise measures designed to promote extensive production which is beneficial to the environment, in order either to sustain existing extensive methods or to provide incentives for reducing livestock density. Evaluation has shown that Member States' programmes focus mainly on the latter type of measure.

2. Regulation (EC) 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures(2) provides for farmers to be granted investment aid for improving animal welfare in the egg and poultry sector, provided that there is no increase in capacity. Such aid is subject to the general requirements and aid ceilings stipulated in the Regulation. However, since it is for Member States to decide - in the light of their priorities - whether to grant this form of aid and for their authorities to approve individual applications, the Commission does not have information on funding for projects relating to flow pen systems for laying hens.

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.