ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Impact of the EU's agrements with third countries on fish and mollusc preserves

In view of the direct influence that the signing of various agreements with third countries has on fish and mollusc preserves and the fact that many of the European firms in this sector do not know the contents of these agreements, can the Commission say what is the state of negotiations, relations or, if appropriate, the latest agreements concluded by the European Union with Turkey, the CEECs, ASEAN, the ACP and SPG countries and the Andean Pact (drugs) etc., as regards fish and other seafood preserves?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3478/97 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission (27 October 1997)

Subject: State aid to Community ports

Does the Commission intend to harmonize the competitive position between Community ports?

Is the Commission aware that competing Community ports are operating with different levels of Government support? Harwich and Felixstowe, for example, must levy charges on all visiting ships to cover port costs such as capital maintenance and dredging, staffing and equipping VTS operations, provision of lighthouses and navigation aids, environmental protection and pollution control and pilotage services.

Is the Commission aware that many of these services are either totally funded or subsidised by Government agencies in neighbouring ports? For example, figures were published recently detailing the German Government's contribution of DM 320 million towards dredging at Bremerhaven and Hamburg, whereas Harwish and Felixstowe are required to fund an identical project through commercial banks. Does the Commission accept that, as a result, higher port dues must be levied on client ships?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

Port financing and charging systems in the Community differ considerably between European ports. At present, each Member State decides whether, and to what extent, to charge users for the provision of port services and facilities, including maritime access and navigational aids. The Commission does not normally monitor tariff practices nor does it aim to harmonize tariffs in the port sector.

Public support for port infrastructure is normally not considered as state aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty as long as the infrastructure is open to all users, in the public interest and on the basis of non-discriminatory access. However, public financing of port superstructure (such as buildings, semi-mobile and mobile equipment) whose access is restricted to certain users is considered as state aid and its compatibility with the EC Treaty has to be examined on that basis.

In the forthcoming green paper on ports and maritime infrastructure, the issue of infrastructure financing and charging will be addressed extensively. The green paper is likely to be adopted towards the end of 1997 and will subsequently be submitted to the Parliament. Further measures in the port sector will, to a large extent, depend on the outcome of the discussions with the other Community institutions, Member States and interested parties following the publication of the paper.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (9 October 1997)

Subject: Ban on asylum seekers driving motor vehicles

1. Is the Council aware of the article in the 'Nederlandse Landelijke Allochtonenkrant' of Wednesday, 17 September which states that after six month's residence in the Netherlands asylum seekers are banned completely from driving motor vehicles?

2. Does the Council take the view that Article 111(3) of the Netherlands Road Traffic Act, which states that driving licences are issued only to persons permanently resident in the Netherlands, unnecessarily violates the fundamental right of freedom of movement for asylum seekers?

3. Will the Council instruct the Commission to submit directives ensuring that asylum seekers in the countries of the European Union who are in possession of a valid certificate of driving proficiency and/or a valid driving licence from their country of origin are at all times during the period of their application for asylum able to drive a motor vehicle in their host country?

Answer (16 February 1998)

1. The Council is not aware of the article in the 'Nederlandse Landelijke Allochtonenkrant'.

2. Community law does not provide any guarantees concerning the free movement of asylum-seekers. Under Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1. )), driving licences can only be issued to persons who have their normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the driving licence. An asylum-seeker who is authorized to remain in the territory of a Member State is therefore covered by this provision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3826/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Security in Europe

In the interests of Europe's own security, are the Commission and Parliament aware of the report published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale on 10 August 1997 to the effect that a company in La Spezia and another in Piacenza had provided Libya with equipment to increase the range and enhance the capabilities of missile launchers, thus posing a potential threat to peace prospects in the Middle East and indeed to Europe's Mediterranean coastline?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the reported transaction to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3531/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Intensive rearing of laying hens in Neubukow

A battery complex for 800 000 laying hens is being built in Neubukow, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

1. To what extent is the EU supporting the construction of the complex, directly and indirectly?

2. Are EU funds being used to develop the infrastructure?

3. Is money from the Structural Funds being used to develop the complex?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)

There are no plans to provide any Community support for either the construction of or the infrastructure related to the battery complex for 800 000 laying hens at Neubukow in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Germany). The Community rules on aid to investment in agricultural holdings, (Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural holdings ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997. ))) exclude aid in the eggs and poultrymeat sector apart from aid to protect the environment and to promote hygiene in premises and the welfare of livestock and then only provided there is no increase in capacity. Accordingly, the Objective 1 operational programme for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania includes no part-finance for this project. At national level, the Federal Government has reacted unfavourably to support for infrastructure in the form of the construction of rural roads. It is not possible to provide the Honourable Member with information about national assistance for construction since the procedure for approval at national level has still not been terminated.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3652/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Programme for Pontic Greeks

Greeks from the Pontos (Russians of Greek origin) who have returned to Greece are one of the groups eligible for aid under the Community initiative programmes Horizon, TACIS, Phare and the operational programme for combating exclusion from the labour market in the Second CSF for Greece for the period from 1994-1999. Will the Commission say:

1. what actions have been taken to support the above group under the programmes in question?

2. what has been the take-up rate by action for the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997?

3. have there been any delays in take-up and, if so, what are the main reasons for this?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

Repatriating Greeks from Pontos (Russians of Greek origin) constitute a target group under subprogramme 2 'Migrants, repatriating Greeks, political refugees' of the operational programe 'Combating exclusion from the labour market' (1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece).

1. The subprogramme provides for the development of integrated packages of measures which form pathways to the integration of the afore-mentioned target group into the labour market. Such measures include pretraining (i.e. teaching of Greek as a foreign language, teaching scientists or specialised professions scientific or professional terminology, information on the legal, working and social environment), training, promotion of employment, accompanying or support services (i.e. social and psychological support, help for dependents, help with accommodation problems).

2. The absorption rate for the total of the subprogramme in question (most of the implemented actions were addressed to the specific target group) was 16% in 1994, 0% in 1995, 74% in 1996 and 43% (estimate) in 1997 of the corresponding European social fund (ESF) annual commitment appropriations.

3. As already mentioned in previous Commission answers relating to other target groups of the specific operational programme, the main reasons for the low take up are the difficulties associated with the operational programme's innovative approach, the lack of appropriate implementing structures and the difficulties during the 1995-96 period in particular to establish and apply systems and procedures that would guarantee effective implementation.

Taking into consideration the experience acquired during the first implementation period, the Greek authorities are currently elaborating an in-depth modification of the operational programme to develop policies and measures more targeted to the particular needs of the group of people in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Council (3 November 1997)

Subject: Political, economic and ecological effects of the disastrous fires in Indonesia

Various sections of the media have drawn attention to the connection between deliberate clearance by burning for the benefit of large companies, in particular the palm oil industry, the personal economic interests of President Suharto and his family and the recent large-scale fires with their attendant environmental effects.

To what extent is the Council considering these accusations against the Indonesian government and what steps is the Council taking to prevent such large-scale fires in future, which have devastating environmental consequences and drive out and destroy small farmers?

Answer (26 January 1998)

At the ASEM Economic Ministers' Meeting at Makuhari in Japan on 30 September 1997, Ministers from the European Union Member States, the President of the Council and the Commission exchanged views with the Asian countries (including Indonesia) on the problem of fires. Ministers stressed the importance of interregional cooperation and solidarity in preventing and mitigating the effects of major environmental phenomenas such as forest fires and floods.

The European Union on 27 October 1997 pledged a total of 326 000 ecus to Indonesia to overcome the serious problem caused by the current land and forest fires. The pledge follows a decision by the European Commission on behalf of the Community and the Member States to undertake a coordinated EU-approach to assist the Government and people of Indonesia in the present emergency. The assistance comprises the supply of fire-fighting equipment valued at ECU 194 000, ECU 115 000 for remote sensing, and 17 000 for fire-fighting expertise. The offer follows the recommendations made by the European Union Fire Response Group (EUFREG), an advisory team of experts established by the Commission and the Member States.

The above pledge is in addition to the ongoing inputs of the EU-assisted forest fire projects in South Sumatra and East Kalimantan, in respect of fire-fighting equipment and basic training techniques and expertise.

Member States of the EU and the European Community together provide nearly 35 % of all external assistance to Indonesia's forest sector. The European Union, therefore, has a long-term commitment to Indonesian forestry in the form of a number of projects focusing on the conservation and sustainable management of Indonesia's forest resources.

Finally in the context of forthcoming discussions between the European Union and ASEAN countries it is envisaged that discussions will take place in the coming months on mutual efforts to support environment protection and sustainable use of natural resources.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Humanitarian aid to Bulgaria - actions by NGOs

At its sitting of 10 April 1997 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on humanitarian aid to Bulgaria. This resolution states, inter alia, that 'the Europe Agreement imposes a moral obligation on the European Union to support the Bulgarian population' and that 'this assistance (must) be executed urgently and targeted towards ... especially old people and children, and the medical services'.

Will the Commission say:

1. what actions has it promoted to fund humanitarian aid to Bulgaria?

2. do any programmes exist of cooperation with NGOs? If so, what amount of funding is provided, which countries do the NGOs come from and what is the content of the programmes in question?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 December 1997)

The Community, principally through the Phare programme and European Community humanitarian office (ECHO), has continued to provide social and humanitarian aid to Bulgaria throughout 1997.

In response to the difficulties faced by the neediest sections of society, the Commission and Bulgarian authorities agreed, in January 1997, an initial 20 MECU Phare emergency social assistance programme (ESAP1) channelling direct financial assistance to particularly poor households and to selected socio-educational institutions managed by the ministries of labour, education and health.

By a second 20 MECU Phare programme (ESAP2), signed by the Commission and the Bulgarian authorities on 16 October 1997, the Community is providing further direct support to needy families and institutions and, in conjunction with the United Nations development programme (UNDP), a number of urban renovation projects which will stimulate job creation possibilities in five selected municipalities.

During the course of 1997, Bulgaria received programme funds totalling 1.8 MECU, provided by the Commission. The funds were distributed by four European non-governmenal organisations (NGOs) in the form of medicines to medical institutions, a supplementary food programme, food parcels to the most vulnerable and school meals. In March 1997, the Commission also requested the Phare-funded Civil society development foundation, as a direct and practical response to the social crisis, to re-direct grant funding towards Bulgarian NGOs active in socio-humanitarian spheres. Latest figures indicate that approximately ECU 630 000 has been channelled in this way while further direct funding totalling ECU 250 000 is expected to be contracted before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3656/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: The arms trade

Some Member States of the European Union are arms producers and export arms to third countries, and the Commission has taken decisions since 1991 on regulating the arms trade but these decisions have been without any binding force or follow-up.

This is a highly sensitive sector and represents many important interests and influences many key sectors of the economy. However, despite the fact that certain Member States have now adopted codes of conduct on arms sales, there is as yet no common European policy in this area.

In view of the above, will the Commission say whether it intends to take initiatives to introduce a code of conduct to regulate the arms trade in a binding manner, and if so when?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1997)

The Commission is concerned about the diverging policies and practices which exist among Member States in the sensitive area of arms production and exports. The Parliament adopted in May 1997 a resolution, based on the Titley report, which called upon the Commission to draw up a white paper on arms exports so that a better assessment might be made of the place of the Community in the world arms trade. The Commission welcomed this suggestion and is currently preparing the document.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2232/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Exercise of electoral rights by Albanian migrants in the EU

Hundreds of thousands of Albanian migrants work in EU countries, and principally in Greece and Italy. Despite the good intentions expressed by certain governments with a view to facilitating the passage of those workers to their home regions so that they could exercise their right to vote, very few of them will be able to do so.

Bearing in mind the importance of the forthcoming elections in Albania, the very large number of migrants and the need for all Albanian citizens to participate, will the Council call on the Albanian Government and the member states of the OSCE to promote initiatives to make it possible for Albanian migrants to vote in their countries of residence so that the outcome of the elections will be as representative as possible?

Answer (19 January 1998)

The Honourable Member's question does not fall within the Council's field of competence.

The Council is not in fact competent to express an opinion on a question concerning the manner in which a non-Member State, Albania, organizes the participation of its emigrant nationals in elections held in Albania.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3537/97 by Wilfried Telkämper (V) to the Council (14 November 1997)

Subject: Forest fires in South-East Asia and their effect on indigenous peoples

The recent catastrophe in Indonesia and Malaysia resulted in considerable environmental damage and significant health and other problems for the local population.

Does the Council have any information on how many people have been affected by the haze as well as by the actual fires, which indigenous areas were affected, if indigenous settlements burnt down, if people were actually dying in the fires and if survivors possibly need humanitarian aid?

Does the Council furthermore have information on the amount of primary forest and plantation forest which burn down, on the plans for reforestation and on implications for the land rights of indigenous peoples?

Is the Council of the opinion that the recent events involving large scale forest fires and their impacts on local communities are in compliance with the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the principles of Agenda 21?

Answer (12 February 1998)

In its Reply to Question No E-3430/97 put by Mr SWOBODA, the Council gave a detailed account of the European Union's contribution in aid of the countries affected by the forest fires in South-East Asia.

In addition to the information already supplied, emphasis should be placed on the bilateral aid supplied by the international community and in particular by Member States of the Union. International aid was closely coordinated on the spot in Jakarta, where the European Commission Representation established the necessary contacts with the Indonesian authorities to ensure that it was dispatched in the best possible conditions.

Certain international initiatives should also be noted, namely the mission of experts sent out by the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) in Geneva to evaluate the consequences of the disaster and the measures to remedy it as well as the international experts' seminar on climate change and forest fires in particular which was held in November 1997 on the initiative of the Indonesian Government. Experts from the Member States contributed constructively to all these efforts.

Finally, it should be stressed, with specific reference to the impact on forests, that the established position of the Community and its Member States in favour of developing an international instrument for the conservation of forests is well known and has been expressed on several occasions both within the UN General Assembly's Special Session, on the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, and at meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/97 by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council (23 October 1997)

Subject: Belgian contribution to the European budget

At the meeting of Finance Ministers in Mondorf on 13/14 September, the Netherlands requested a reduction in its contribution to the Union, claiming, on the basis of its own table of figures, that it was the biggest net contributor to the Union.

Can the Council supply a copy of this table of figures cited by the Netherlands?

Does the Council have calculations of its own which give a detailed indication of which Member States of the Union are net contributors or net beneficiaries and, to what extent, for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Answer (20 January 1998)

1. The working paper to which the Honourable Member refers was mentioned by the Netherlands delegation at an informal meeting of Finance Ministers and was not the subject of an official communication to the Council. According to customary practice, when a delegation forwards an internal document of that kind which is discussed in an informal setting, it is the responsibility of that delegation alone, i.e. in this case the Netherlands delegation.

2. With regard to the second question, the Council has taken note of the figures prepared by the Commission relating to the breakdown of resources and most expenditure per Member State. Similar information was also made available to the Council during discussions on previous financial packages and is included in the Court of Auditors reports. However, neither the Council nor the Commission has ever formally drawn up net balances per Member State.