ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/98

by Leo Tindemans (PPE) to the Commission

(17 September 1998)

Subject: Phare policy: protection of the interests of European experts

How can European experts working on Phare projects assert their interests against their principals in the event of differences of opinion about the implementation of a project?

Under the principle of decentralised implementation, responsibility for the implementation of programmes is borne by the authorities of the Phare countries and the Commission's delegations.

If a difference of opinion arose between the authorities in the country concerned and the European contractor, one would normally expect the European contractor to be able to ask the Commission delegation to act on his behalf in seeking to arrive at a satisfactory solution to enable the implementation of the project to proceed.

However, experience in Romania and Bulgaria shows that the delegations there entrust the monitoring of Phare projects to local officials who are not willing to intervene in disputes with their colleagues in the national administrations, while European officials at the delegation do not see it as their job to do anything about the situation. Officials at the Commission's DG IA are not willing to intervene, either. Thus in the event of misunderstandings, European experts face a wall of incomprehension and helplessness. Yet misunderstandings about the implementation of programmes are not so uncommon.

In the Commission's view, who can be instructed to mediate between a European contractor and the authorities on the spot? Would it not be appropriate for either the Commission itself or the Phare administration to assume this task?

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

(21 October 1998)

The Commission has transferred the contracting authority for nearly all Phare projects to partner countries. In this decentralised system, a national implementing authority, such as a programme management unit, enters into a contract with consultants. The Commission has no legal relationship with the consultant. If disagreement on the implementation of the contract arises between the consultant and the implementing authority, it is to be settled according to the procedures established in the contract between these two parties.

Normally, problems arising in implementation of a project should be addressed by the two contracting parties. However, where problems persist, the consultants should contact, while respecting their contractual obligations, the relevant Commission delegation or the Commission's Joint relex service for the management of Community aid to non-member countries. The Commission will seek to intervene informally with both parties, where resources allow, to help achieve the objectives of the projects while respecting the autonomy of the partner country to manage projects entrusted to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2730/98

by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: DG XIII's failure to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival

In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000 to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payments the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997.

In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by the recipient.

However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombudsman no money has yet been forthcoming.

1. Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?

2. Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?

3. What action is the Commission going to take?

4. When does the Commission think it will be paying out the money?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

A complaint concerning the case referred to by the Honourable Member has already been made to the European Ombudsman.

The Commission provided a detailed response to an initial request for information by the Ombudsman. In addition, following a request for further information by the Ombudsman, the Commission provided further details on specific points concerning the subsidy-granting procedure. The Ombudsman has so far not announced his conclusions.

Since the facts at issue are being examined closely by the European Ombudsman the Commission feels that the Ombudsman¢s conclusions should be awaited before any possible follow-up work in this areas is examined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2447/98

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

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Rights of Berbers in Africa

The law on the general use of Arabic entered into force in Algeria on 5 July 1998. Its imposition will affect the Algerian population as a whole, but the Berber peoples from all over the Maghreb, a large proportion of whom are settled in Algeria, will be particularly affected.

This fact, combined with the murder of the folk singer Lounès Matoub on 25 June 1998, has provoked a revolt by the Berber population who, united by the Tamazight language and possessing their own cultural identity, are suffering under a policy of compulsory "Arabisation" imposed by the states in which they live.

Effective diplomatic activity is evidently needed in order to guarantee the rights of the Berbers as a people.

What initiatives has the Commission taken or will it take in response to the above developments?

Does the Commission consider it necessary to contact the Algerian government to request effective protection for the rights of Berber communities in that country?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 1998)

The immediate implementation of the Arabisation law announced on 4 July 1992 could well have adverse implications for the Berber people, as pointed out by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations at its sixty-second session in July 1998.

Under the rules laid down in the Treaty on European Union, diplomatic action as proposed by the Honourable Member is a matter not only for the Commission but also for the Member States.

The Commission is endeavouring to ensure that the Association Agreement between the Community and Algeria is adopted without delay; this would give the Community a framework and proper scope to assert its human rights position with its Algerian partners. In the meantime, the Commission will not hesitate to raise the matter referred to by the Honourable Member in the regular diplomatic discussions it holds with the Algerian authorities, jointly with the Member States.

It should be pointed out that since 1995 the Community has been committed to a political dialogue with its Southern and Eastern Mediterranean partners, including Algeria, which embraces human rights issues, including minority rights. This has given rise to several multilateral exchanges of views between senior officials in the 27 partner countries and a review of the ratification of international human rights instruments. However, the bilateral dialogue between the Community and Algeria is not yet operational, as the Association Agreement intended to provide an institutional framework for it is still under negotiation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2170/98

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 1998)

Subject: State aid allocated by Germany and France

Can the Commission say how much State aid was allocated by France and Germany in 1997 and what amounts these countries gave to the EU in that same year?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Information on state aids can be found in the Commission's recent survey on state aid in the European Union in the manufacturing and certain other sectors(1).

The Community budget is financed by traditional own resources, and by VAT and GNP own resources. In 1997, Germany's share in total Community budget resources was 28,2 %, in traditional own resources 24,2 %, and in VAT and GNP resources 29,1 % (traditional own resources ECU 3 432 million, VAT ECU 10 503 million and GNP ECU 7 281 million).

Also in 1997, France's share in total Community budget resources was 17,5 %, in traditional own resources 10,9 %, and in VAT and GNP resources 19,0 % (traditional own resources ECU 1 550 million, VAT ECU 6 842 and GNP ECU 4 793).

(1) COM(98) 417 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2013/98 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. Real disposable regional incomes



Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0015



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2013/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1998) Subject: Real disposable regional incomes Does the Commission consider that the statistical base for the regions in Agenda 2000 is an accurate reflection of real disposable income levels in each region?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/98

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Questions concerning human rights violations in the Netherlands Antilles

1. Is the Council of Ministers aware that the Public Prosecutor in Curaçao has ordered an investigation into the ill-treatment of prisoners in Koraal Specht Prison?

2. Is the Council of Ministers aware that violent incidents occurred in the high-security wing of Koraal Specht Prison before warders and members of the riot police intervened?

3. Does the Council of Ministers realise that the manner in which the riot police in the Antilles intervened, which included forcing a group of prisoners to strip naked and, while handcuffed, run the gauntlet back to their cells along a row of warders hitting them with batons, constitutes a serious violation of human rights?

4. Is the Council prepared to ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands for information about these practices, and what does the Council of Ministers intend to do to prevent such conduct from occurring on the territory of an EU Member State in the future?

Reply

(14 December 1998)

The Council is not in a position to answer the Honourable Member's questions which, in any case, do not come under the competence of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Gas and fire liability

Will the Commission reconsider the need for a proposal on service liability to complement the existing Directive on product liability?

In addition, has the Commission undertaken any research into how information on fire safety might best be applied to consumers in holiday accommodation and does the Commission consider that there is a case to mandate the existing Recommendation on Fire Safety?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

In the context of consumer safety protection, and the internal market, the Commission intends to reconsider and explore the needs, scope, options, approaches and possible contents for Community action in the field of service safety. Preventive aspects of the safety of services will be considered as well as reparative aspects linked to liability.

The Commission intends to launch studies for an updated assessment of the issue as soon as possible.

The necessary contacts with Member States' experts and interest groups will take place in the course of these studies.

Safety information is already part of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels(1). The Commission does not plan to launch specific research on that subject.

Following a Resolution by Parliament on fire safety in hotels(2) a study on the state of the implementation of the Recommendation in the Member States shows that the Recommendation has been extensively implemented in national legislation. The Commission does not, therefore, envisage proposing that this Recommendation becomes mandatory.

For further information on this point, the Honourable Member is referred to Written Question E-1423/97 by Mrs Pollack(3).

Safety in hotels could nevertheless be examined when considering the safety of services and taken into account in the studies to be carried out in this context.

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.

(2) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994.

(3) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/98

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Corruption in Russia

The current state of the Russian economy suggests that the process of resolving its problems will be long and hard. However, the most regrettable aspect has been the reports alleging that the Central Bank and other bodies have not used the loans granted by the IMF for the purposes for which they were intended and even that they may have been misappropriated by senior Russian officials. Given this situation, what is the current amount of the EU's outstanding loans to Russia? What measures will the EU take as regards monitoring the loans already granted to Russia or any which it might grant in the future?

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

(10 November 1998)

The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member about Russia's economic and financial situation.

Today, there are no outstanding credits with Russia. Those granted in 1991 (Community guarantee for export credits worth ECU 500 million, and ECU 1 250 million loan to the ex-Union of Soviet Socialist republics (USSR) for food and medical aid) were fully paid back. No macroeconomic assistance has ever been granted to Russia.

As regards the possibility of new credits to help Russia overcome its present financial crisis, the Commission will follow the guidelines set by the Cardiff European Council. Any eventual macroeconomic assistance should be provided through the international financial institutions and should be linked to the implementation by the Russian government of a credible economic reform policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2416/98 by Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS to the Commission. Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete



Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0054



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/98 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (27 July 1998) Subject: Damage to agriculture caused by heatwave in Crete At the beginning of July Crete experienced an unprecedented heatwave (the temperature exceeded 40 degrees) which greatly damaged viticulture (especially in the prefecture of Irakleion) and stockbreeding. In particular, production of table grapes over a very large area and hundreds of hectares of sultana vineyards were destroyed. As far as stockbreeding is concerned, the heatwave mainly affected poultry, pigs, domestic animals and apiculture. Will the Commission say whether it considers that there is any scope for granting aid to the stricken agricultural sectors in Crete?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1993/98

by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: DEA (diethanolamine)

DEA is used in soaps, bubble bath preparations, shampoos, etc. It is classified as a local irritant in the EU, but recent research carried out in the USA as part of the National Toxicology Program found cancer in the livers and kidneys of male mice which had been exposed to DEA. Moreover, DEA can be converted into N-nitrosodiethanolamine in the human body.

Having regard to the precautionary principle, will the Commission investigate whether DEA should be classified as a carcinogen in Category 3 on the basis of these findings?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The scientific experts group which the Commission convenes for the purpose of classification of hazardous substances is discussing the results of the available toxicological studies for diethanolamine (DEA). The next meeting will probably allow them to finalise their advice. The studies on the carcinogenic effects of DEA will be given special attention on that occasion.

The new classification of DEA will be presented for insertion into Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC on the classification packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(1), in accordance with the regulatory committee procedure provided under Article 29, at one of the forthcoming adaptations to technical progress.

(1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: The entry into force of Commission Decision 97/296 of 22 April 1997

Following the entry into force of Commission Decision 97/296(1) of 22 April 1997, fishery products may be imported from a number of third countries authorised to do so. Such imports are subject to compliance with certain formalities and checks on the health conditions for production.

1. Can the Commission say whether it can guarantee that the health requirements for products from third countries are absolutely identical to those for fishery products produced in the Community?

2. Can the Commission say whether the importation of fishery products from those countries is in fact authorised before or after the actual health conditions of production are ascertained on the spot?

3. Can the Commission say what measures it is carrying out or intends to implement to guarantee full and permanent compliance with the health requirements for the production of fishery products from those countries?

4. Can the Commission say whether, on its own initiative or in conjunction with the Member States, it has already ascertained/checked the health conditions of fishery products imported from the authorised third countries and what the global results were?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 1998)

Commission Decision 97/296/EC of 22 April 1997, drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption, entered into force on 1 July 1998. It contains three lists of third countries. List I of Annex I indicates the third countries covered by a specific Commission decision on the import of fishery products. Such decisions are adopted following a mission by Community and Member State experts to the country to verify the monitoring conditions applied by the local authority. List II of Annex I and the list constituted by Annex II indicate third countries for which a study of the membership application file has found that the information received is satisfactory (list II of Annex I) or substantial (Annex II). Under these circumstances, import arrangements are not totally harmonised as regards the lists of authorised establishments. It is the responsibility of each Member State to obtain any guarantees from the third country concerned. Most third countries on these two lists have not been subjected to an on-the-spot inspection by Commission experts.

Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(2) requires the same health conditions to apply to both Member States and third countries.

(1) OJ L 122, 14.5.1997, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: World Cup soccer violence

In view of the horrific acts of violence witnessed during the football World Cup tournament, what measures will the Commission be calling for to combat what is an increasing European wide trend?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 1998)

The implementation of appropriate policing measures for the purpose of preventing hooliganism, and generally speaking, the issue of violence occurring at sporting events or other occasions attended by large numbers of people, are primarily matters of public order. The Commission is not in position to intervene concerning the way police forces of the Member States maintain public order on their own territory.

Within the Justice and Home Affairs framework of the Council, the police cooperation working group tackles this issue from an operational point of view with a network of liaison officers and annual meeting of contact points. In this context, the Council in 1996 adopted a Recommendation on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected to football matches(1). More recently in 1997 a Joint Action with regard to cooperation on public order and safety and a Resolution on preventing and restraining football hooliganism(2) were adopted by the Council. The implementation of the Recommendation (stadium bans, development of a checklist for media policy, annual report, annual expert meeting, report to the Council) should start in 1998.

The Commission is of course in favour of the promotion and the implementation of closer police cooperation at a European level and it has financed, in the context of the OISIN programme, a seminar on policing football hooliganism, held in Blackburn on 27-28 February 1998. But the implementation of appropriate measures for preventing and restraining disorder is for Member States in accordance with their own national legislation and Union law. Furthermore, a Council draft recommendation on the responsibility of organisers is currently being discussed at a technical level. The Commission is not involved in the application of the Union of European football associations (UEFA) regulations concerning stadiums, but it does cooperate with organisations that have a specific role in this area, such as the Council of Europe where a standing committee has been created.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.5.1996.

(2) OJ C 193, 24.6.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Transposition of the Community Directive on the incinceration of waste

Has Greece transposed into its national legislation the Community Directive on the incineration of waste, a matter directly affecting the protection of both the environment and of public health? If not, what action does the Commission intend to take, and what might be the financial penalties imposed on Greece for this failure?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

Article 18(1) of Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous waste(1) requires Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive before 31 December 1996 and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

Not having received any national implementing measures transposing the Directive into Greek law, the Commission sent the Greek authorities a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion on 19 February 1998. The Greek authorities did not reply. On 24 June 1998 the Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

It now falls to the Court of Justice to recognise that the Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations. Article 171 of the EC Treaty requires the Member State to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment, failing which the Commission may bring the case before the Court and propose the amount of the penalty to be paid by the Member State, which the Court alone has the power to establish in its judgment(2). In its communication of 28 February 1997, the Commission established the method of calculating the penalty payment provided for in Article 171 of the Treaty(3).

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2) Memorandum on applying Article 171 of the EC Treaty, OJ C 242, 21.8.1996.

(3) 97/C 63/02, OJ L 63, 28.2.1997.