ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0451/99

by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Quality of food aid for Russia

What exactly was the nature of the sudden "dispute" about the food aid supplied by the European Union to Russia? Because of the dispute the aid is now suspended.

According to the European press, Russia - which, as is known, was in drastic need of the aid - had asked for food that complied with the health rules in force there.

Other sources ("Le Figaro", p. 3 of 10 February 1999) indicate that Russia merely wished the quality of the food aid to be equivalent to that of products delivered as part of normal trade, which seems quite legitimate.

Can the Commission confirm - with full knowledge of the facts and appropriate data on the firms - that Union funds are being managed in such a way as to send the type of food in question to Russia, that no attempt has been made to force Russia to accept low-quality products and that there has been no cynical exploitation of the needs of the Russian people?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to Oral Question H-130/99 by Mr Giansily at question time during the March 1999(1) session of Parliament.

As stated in the memorandum signed on 20 January 1999 between the Community and the Russian Federation, the Commission undertook to supply goods of the minimum quality required for intervention buying-in.

In fact, apart from pigmeat and wholly milled rice, the products to be supplied to the Russian Federation are already held in the Community's intervention stores and must therefore have met those minimum quality requirements when bought into intervention.

The operators involved are responsible only for transporting those products from intervention warehouses to ports or designated border points, and not for supplying the products. The Commission laid down the quality criteria for pigmeat and wholly milled rice in the regulations opening the invitations to tender.

The surveillance companies designated by the Commission are responsible, among other things, for checking that the products from Community intervention stocks still meet the minimum quality required for intervention products and, on arrival in Russia, have not undergone any significant deterioration in quality during transport.

The minimum quality required for intervention is accepted for all commercial exports. The quality required by the Russian operators was far in excess of the quality that the Community could guarantee to supply.

(1) Parliamentary debates (March 1999).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Interpretation and implementation of Directive 92/42/EEC

Which criteria or preconditions determine whether the "considerations relating to consequences of primary importance for the environment" within the meaning of Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 92/43/EEC(1) apply to a given rail transport project?

This question follows on from my Question of 25 July 1998 which Mrs Bjerregaard answered on behalf of the Commission (E-2638/98)(2). However, she failed to provide an answer to the above question or rather prompted it in the first place.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

In its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question 2638/98, the Commission has already given its view, and explained that the question of "beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment" can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are no general formulae or criteria additional to those already set out in Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and the general environmental advantages of trains over other forms of transport cannot displace the need for project and site specific analysis.

Only the Court of justice can give a definitive interpretation of the Directive, and the Commission regrets that it cannot give more guidance to the Honourable Member than that contained in its previous answer.

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

(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 110.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0354/99

by Marco Formentini (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Irregularities in allocating grants for Structural Fund objectives in the region of Liguria

On 30 March 1998 the commune of Chiavari (Genoa) asked the region of Liguria for a non-repayable Objective 2 grant for a project to upgrade the historical centre in terms of town planning, tourism and trade. The application was submitted within the deadlines indicated in the procedural provisions.

Managerial decree No 321 of 4 September 1998 approved the list of proposals submitted and the grant application. The proposals submitted by the communes of Genoa, Cairo Montenotte and Sarzana were deemed admissible although the project characteristics were inadequate according to the managerial decree. The Chiavari proposal, which was complete both in project and formal terms, was not considered suitable.

Consequently the commune of Chiavari presented a statement to the legal authority. An inquiry is now under way.

Does the Commission not think it should check whether the region of Liguria has adopted discriminatory criteria contrary to the principles of objectivity, honesty and transparency in the management of Community financial resources and initiate an inquiry into the matter?

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

(15 March 1999)

The Honourable Member's query is primarily a matter for the Italian authorities in application of the subsidiarity principle.

Information received from the region of Liguria, and in particular with regard to the call for projects relating to measure 3.5 - "Infrastructures to revitalise urban centres" indicates that applications were rated according to a points system, the principal criteria being the incidence of the proposed infrastructure on the environment and local tourism, the improvement and conversion of existing infrastructure and employment creation. The project from the municipality of Chiavari was not rejected but was given a lower rating than the projects from the municipalities cited by the Honourable Member.

Applications for funding under measure 3,5 presently outstrip available resources. However a recent reprofiling of the objective 2 programme, currently being adopted by the Commission, has assigned further funds to the measure. The Chiavari project is the first on the list after those already funded and is therefore well positioned to benefit from these new funds.

On the basis of the information the Commission has, it does not seem that there are grounds for initiating an enquiry into the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0260/99

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 1999)

Subject: Implementation of the CITES rules in Greece

In September 1998 the CITES Secretariat issued a "notification" requesting all parties to CITES to suspend trade with Greece because it had not made sufficient effort to transpose CITES and the corresponding EU legislation into national law.

Can the Commission say what action it intends to take in the near future to persuade Greece to introduce national legislation on CITES, and does it plan to help Greece to do so?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Having noted that Greece had not taken the action needed in order to implement Regulation (EC) 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(1), the Commission decided, on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty, to lay the matter before the Court of Justice in October 1998.

In the meantime the Greek authorities have informed the Commission of the wording of Law 2637/98, adopted on 27 August 1998, which sets up a new regulatory framework, in Greece, on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, in accordance with the CITES Regulation(2). The compliance of that wording is currently being analysed.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2) OJ L 384, 31.12.1982.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0374/99

by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Construction of the C-37 road from Torelló to Valle de En Bas (Catalonia, Spain)

Over the last few years the plan to build a road linking the towns of Vic and Olot in Catalonia has been vehemently rejected by environmental organisations and many social and political bodies active in the area.

According to the environmental impact assessment which has been carried out, the plan which includes the construction of a tunnel at Bracons on the section of the road between Torelló and Valle de En Bas, would have a devastating effect on the area.

However, despite increasing opposition to any attempt to proceed with the plan, the Catalonia regional government's planning policy and public works department has decided to initiative the administrative procedure for putting it into effect and has asked the Spanish Government to include it in the EU's trans-European transport network.

Can the Commission say whether or not the Spanish Government has submitted a request for the road in question to be included in the trans-European transport network? If so, is the project to be financed from the Cohesion Fund?

Is the Commission aware of the environmental impact assessment, which has been carried out as a statutory requirement and what does it think of it? Does the Commission consider the damaging of areas of special natural interest (which, as the environmental impact assessment makes plain, would occur as a result of the plan) to contravene the relevant Community rules?

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

(22 March 1999)

Spain has made no request to include the C-37 road from Torello to Valle da En Bas in Catalonia in the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). The Cohesion Fund and the TEN budget contain no finance for this section. It may be noted that the Cohesion Fund has financed two other sections of the highway known as the "Eje de Cataluña": the section between Rajadell and Artés(1) and the section between Artés and Sta. Maria de Oló(2).

The Commission is not aware of the results of the environmental impact study carried out by Spain.

The information provided by the Honourable Member suggests that the road will cross an area which Spain proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network (Sistema Transversal Catalá, code ES51110005). The Commission will ask the Spanish authorities for information on the steps taken to ensure compliance with Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(3).

(1) Commission Decision C(95) 3068 of 11 December 1995, as amended by Decision C(96) 3776 of 12 December 1996.

(2) Commission Decision C(96) 2626 of 23 September 1996.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0373/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Worrying state of health of Mr Ukshin Hoti and disappearances and arrests without charge in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

In an urgent resolution adopted on 14 May 1998(1) Parliament called on the Council to do everything in its power to persuade the Belgrade authorities to release Mr Ukshin Hoti, a Kosovan university professor imprisoned by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for crimes of conscience in 1995. Since then, the state of health of Mr Hoti, who is still in prison, has deteriorated very seriously as a result of the very harsh conditions in which he is being held.

Can the Council Presidency, through its ambassador in Belgrade or by any other means, check on the spot the conditions under which Mr Hoti is being held and the medical treatment available to him and take every possible step to ensure that Mr Hoti is released not at the end of his sentence, in May 1999, but immediately?

More generally, can the Council Presidency give the number of prisoners of conscience and an estimate of the number of persons who have been arrested without charge or have disappeared (desaparecidos) in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since the beginning of 1998?

Reply

(26 April 1999)

The Council fully shares the Honourable Member's worries about the health state of Mr. Ukshin Hoti.

Consequently, the Presidency has instructed its Ambassador in Belgrade to enter into contact with the local representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in order to verify the medical and detention conditions of Mr. Hoti and to assess the possibilities for an early release. Representatives of the ICRC have been able to meet with Mr. Hoti on 1st March 1999. The Presidency endeavours to keep Parliament informed of any information that the representatives of the ICRC will make available to its Ambassador in Belgrade.

The Council does however want to caution the Honourable Member against undue optimism as the relations between Belgrade and the European Union are seriously strained notably due to the current crisis in Kosovo and the demands the Council has addressed to the Belgrade authorities in that respect.

The Council is not in a position to give an accurate account of the number of persons currently incarcerated for their beliefs, that have been arrested without inculpation or that have disappeared. According to figures released by the ICRC in August 1998, the organisation was investigating the cases of 138 Serbs and Montenegrins reportedly abducted by the Kosovo Liberation Army, and over 400 Albanians reportedly detained by Serbian forces. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) gave a total of 400 gathered during its registration of those reported as unaccounted for. The UNHCR believes that around 200 of these are currently in police detention.

(1) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 197.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/99

by Roberto Speciale (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Civil and political rights in Cuba

Four political dissidents, in detention for more than 18 months without their rights being protected in any way, are currently being "tried" in Cuba. At the same time dozens of dissidents are in custody or preventive detention apparently in order to prevent any demonstration of public protest.

These people (intellectuals and journalists) are accused of having expressed opinions and drafting a text entitled "The country belongs to everyone".

1. What has the Commission done and what does it intend to do to convey to the Cuban authorities the EU's firm opposition to a method that violates basic civil and political rights and to call for the release of the dissidents?

2. How does the Commission intend to again urge an end to the unreasonable and harmful economic blockade imposed by the USA 40 years ago and the opening up of Cuban society to political pluralism and freedom of thought and speech repeatedly called for by the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 1999)

The Cuban courts have sentenced the members of the Grupo de Trabajo de la Disidencia Interna (Internal Dissidents' Working Group), Vladimiro Roca (five years), Félix Antonio Bonne (four years), René Gómez (four years) and Marta Roque (three years) after putting them on trial for having exercised their right to freedom of expression, a right which is universally recognised.

Once the trial verdict was made public, the European Union immediately issued a statement expressing its deep regret at the dissidents' sentences and the way in which the trial had been conducted; it called for the four to be rapidly released.

The Commission will continue to use the means at its disposal to give positive encouragement to the process of transition to pluralist democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the context of the Common Position of 2 December 1996.

Against this background, the Commission has been closely monitoring the state of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba and has been taking part in the European Union's political dialogue. It has also been providing humanitarian aid and targeted economic assistance to encourage the country to open up its economy to the outside.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 145/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN EU aid to Rotenburg, Lower Saxony (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)



Official Journal C 370 , 21/12/1999 P. 0021



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission (11 February 1999) Subject: EU aid to Rotenburg, Lower Saxony During the 1994-99 parliamentary term, what European Union grants, broken down by aid area, and for what amounts, were made to Rotenburg, Lower Saxony?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/99

by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Council

(25 February 1999)

Subject: National sides of euro coins

1. Is the Council aware of the number of national designs on the euro coins of the 11 Member States of the European Union which are to participate in the euro?

2. Austria and Italy have no fewer than eight different designs. Does the Council agree that the large number of national designs will cause confusion among users? If not, why not?

3. The European Central Bank has stated that not only euro banknotes but also euro coins could be forged. Does the Council agree that the large number of national designs will facilitate forgery? If not, why not?

4. Why did the Council not decide that each country participating in EMU should adopt a single national design for the euro coins?

5. What measures will the Council take to induce mintmasters to reduce the number of national designs to one per Member State?

Reply

(26 April 1999)

Council Regulation 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation(1), at last amended by Council Regulation 423/1999 of 22 February 1999(2), lays down uniform rules for the issue of such coins which are applicable to all Member States concerned. The only noteworthy exception to these otherwise uniform rules concerns the design of the national side which will be different according to the Member State of issue.

In this context the Council considered that "giving these coins one European and one national side is an appropriate expression of the idea of European monetary union between Member States and could significantly increase the degree of acceptance of the coins by European citizens" (10th recital of Regulation 975/98).

The Council is therefore of the opinion that the different designs of the national sides rather than creating confusion for consumers, will increase their degree of acceptance by paying tribute, at least partially, to the different design traditions of Member States.

Furthermore, the Council does not consider that the fact of there being more than one design of the national side of the euro coins will facilitate forgery. In this respect it should be borne in mind that, given their high value, uniform special security features are applicable for the issue of the one and two euro coins.

In conclusion, the Council sees presently no need to modify Regulation 975/98 in this respect.

(1) OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 6.

(2) OJ L 52, 27.2.1999, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0605/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Clashes between farmers and the police

In their latest demonstration, farmers who had come from all parts of Europe clashed with the police in Brussels. Parliament acted as if it were under siege and stopped work on the day in question.

1. Does the Commission not believe that the unfortunate decision to close Parliament's premises, a gesture of hostility to the protesters, may have caused the situation to degenerate into violence, leading eventually to the clashes with the police?

2. Does it not believe that the incident amounted to a denial of the right of persons representing one of Europe's main occupational groups to stage a free and democratic protest?

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

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 1999)

The Commission is not in a position to comment on a decision taken by Parliament.

The Commission was not closed on 22 February 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/99

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

(26 March 1999)

Subject: 1999 tariff quotas for tuna loins

Given that the capacity for the supply of tuna loins, under favourable tariff conditions, from GSP, ACP and Community countries is approximately 129 500 tonnes, enough to supply the European market at current levels of demand, and taking into account the fact that in 1997 Europe imported 38 940 tonnes of tuna loins and that therefore demand was comfortably met, will the Commission clarify the quantitative criteria on which it bases its proposal to open a tariff quota for 1999 which is untenable in view of the quantities currently available, at a time when delegations from some EU countries are even prepared to reach a compromise to create contractual arrangements based on international prices between the fishing industry and those sectors of the Italian processing industry which may require such arrangements, so guaranteeing the supply of raw material?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

The Commission cannot confirm the figure put forward by the Honourable Member for the quantities of tuna loins available from Community countries, "GSP-Drugs" States and the ACP States. The figures given to the Commission by the Member States producing tuna loins are much lower than those cited by the Honourable Member.

When the Commission drew up its proposal to open autonomous tariff quotas, it took account of the Member States' requests and the state of the Community market.

In the case of the tariff quota for tuna loins, the Commission noted that the Community did not produce enough tuna loins to meet its needs. Indeed, the Community canning industry has to make increasing use of imports from third countries. This observation was confirmed by figures provided on 15 January 1999 by the Spanish producer group "Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Conservas de Pescado y Marisco" (Anfaco). Their statistics show that Spain, the main Member State producing tuna loins, is itself unable to supply its canning industry fully.

The Commission would also point out that, when imports from countries enjoying preferential treatment (the ACP and "GSP-Drugs" States) take place in accordance with the rules of origin - to which the Honourable Member rightly attaches great importance - they are still insufficient to supply the Community canning industry.