ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0780/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Financing of political parties

As indicated, inter alia, in the Tsatsos report (A4-342/96), and as has been the practice for many years, European political parties receive funding from the Community.

However, I cannot clearly identify the grants paid in the budget. I should therefore like to put the following questions to the Commission:

1. How much Community funding is allocated to European political parties in the budget for 1999?

2. Which parties received grants, and how much is paid in each case?

3. What is the required legal basis for this in primary and secondary Community legislation?

4. Were the appropriations increased in the 1999 financial year with a view to the European elections, and if so, by how much?

5. What preconditions must a party meet in order to qualify for EU funding?

6. How much money is budgeted for the individual political groups in Parliament, broken down into staff expenditure, administrative expenditure and travelling expenses?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Following the Tsatsos report an item was established in the Parliament Section of the general budget (item 3710) to provide funding for political parties. In the 1998 and 1999 budgets this item received only a token entry.

Point 6a of the Tsatsos report notes that a basic instrument would have to be adopted to give effect to this item. The budget remarks on item 3710 cite Article 191 of the EC Treaty (former Article 138a) as the legal basis in primary law.

Only the administration of Parliament, as authorising officer of Section I - Parliament - of the budget, can answer the Honourable Member's question regarding the breakdown of appropriations between the parliamentary political parties
earthquakes in Turkey and Greece as well as developments in bilateral Greek-Turkish relations, and is
convinced that dialogue with Turkey, which will embrace all issues, is the only right way forward to bringTurkey closer to the values and objectives of the European Union. In this context, the Council wishes tounderline the importance it attached to the participation of Foreign Minister Cem in the General AffairsCouncil luncheon on 13 September 1999.
(2000/C 27 E/102) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/99
by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan
In view of the farcical trial and the resulting death sentence passed on the Kurdish leader Öçalan:
1. Does the Commission not think that it should make urgent representations to the government in
Ankara, so that it can be announced in Parliament that the death sentence has with immediate effectbeen commuted to imprisonment?
2. Does the Commission not think that it should make an official announcement to the effect that the
death sentence in question constitutes the Turkish Governments umpteenth violation of human rightsand the basic principles of international law?
3. Does the Commission not therefore think that, in the meantime, it should:
(a) suspend all trade preference agreements (both customs agreements and others) between the
European Union and Turkey?
(b) suspend the current negotiations on Turkeys accession to the European Union?
(c) ban all arms trading between Turkey and the EU Member States?
Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission
(16 September 1999)
The death sentence passed on the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Öçalan, on
29 June by the Court of State Security in Ankara provoked reactions from many quarters in the Union,including the Presidency which called on Turkey not to carry it out. Similar views were expressed on the
Commissions behalf by the Member of the Commission responsible who invited the Turkish authorities to
take account of the EUs opposition to the death penalty.
It should be borne in mind that capital punishment has not been exercised once in Turkey since 1984 and
that a draft Criminal Code is currently before the Turkish Parliament providing for its abolition. If the
sentence on Mr Öçalan were to be carried out, this would clearly nullify all Turkeys efforts to put an endto the death penalty.
The Commission does not consider that the possibility of retaliatory measures against Turkey, as suggested
by the honourable Member of Parliament, need be examined at this stage. It is monitoring the action to be
taken on the Court of State Securitys decision closely and can confirm that the Turkish authoritiesconcerned will take the EUs position into account.
Turkey is included in the enlargement process and has been the subject of a regular annual report on its
progress towards accession since the Cardiff European Council in June 1998. The Commission is due to
present its next report by the end of the year and will take due account of developments in the Öçalancase.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/83 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0799/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Refugee projects

On the initiative of Commissioner Gradin the Commission has decided for the second time running to grant financial support (EUR 16,75 million) for projects to assist refugees in the EU states. These projects include support for projects to improve the reception structures for asylum-seekers and displaced persons in the Member States (EUR 3,75 million), but also provide appropriations to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of refugees (EUR 13 million).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has Austria submitted any programmes for either phases of the project, and how many Austrian projects have been approved?

2. If so, what was the substance of such projects and what share of the funding was borne by the EU?

3. What were the criteria for the acceptance of the 76 projects? Which Member States received the allocations and what amount of money was allocated on which projects?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

Austria submitted projects in both phases (1997 and 1998) under the programme to improve the infrastructure for the reception of asylum-seekers, refugees and displaced persons (B5-803) and the programme to facilitate the voluntary return of refugees, asylum-seekers and displaced persons (B7-6008).

The breakdown of approved projects is as follows:

- 1997:

- B5-803 - 3 projects:

- Volkshilfe Oberösterreich, Linz (two projects),

- International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna.

- B7-6008 - 5 projects:

- Österreichisches Studienzentrum für Frieden und Konfliktforschung (ÖSFK), Stadtschlaning,

- Volkshilfe Österreich, Vienna,

- International Centre of Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna (three projects).

- 1998:

- B5-803 - 2 projects:

- Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für Entwicklungshilfe, Vienna,

- Asyl in Not, Vienna.

- B7-6008 - 5 projects:

- Caritas Österreich, Vienna (also Salzburg and Graz),

- Verein Susret-Begegnung, Bregenz,

- Berufsförderungsinstitut, Vienna,

- International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna (two projects).

Owing to the volume of detailed information on the projects referred to above, this has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/99

by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Persecution of a religious minority in Iran

In view of recent events, as well as the context of long-standing extreme harassment in which they took place, would the Commission consider raising, in its negotiations with the Iranian authorities in the new situation created by the disavowing of the fatwah against Mr Salman Rushdie, the position of the Baha'i and other religious minorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran? In the last few months, at least 36 faculty members of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education have been arrested, two members of the community have been sentenced to death, over 500 homes have been raided, and personal property, as well as BIHE equipment, has been removed. More than 200 Baha'i have been killed since 1980 because of their beliefs. Baha'i are routinely denied their constitutional rights and are subject to confiscation of property and denial of pension rights. Baha'i cemeteries and holy places are repeatedly desecrated. Baha'i are denied access to normal university education, which is why the BIHE was established. What action is the Commission prepared to take in defence of the human rights of the Iranian Baha'i people?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

The Commission follows with deep concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights in general are always raised by the Union.

The Commission does not have any bilateral contractual relationship with Iran. However, the Commission associates itself to the demarches made by the Union Troika in this respect. A demarche to the Iranian Government in Tehran was made on 5 August 1998, regarding the execution of Mr Ruhu'llah Rawhani. A further demarche was made on 4 October 1998 regarding the death sentences against Sirus Dhabihi-Muqaddam and Hidayat-Kashifi Najafabadi, where the Union called upon the Iranian authorities to take actions in order that these sentences would not be executed. The Troika was informed that the death sentences were not final, but were subject to confirmation by the Supreme Court.

In the demarche of 4 October 1998, the Union restated its position on the death penalty, and recalled the United Nations human rights commission resolution 1998/80, which expresses concern at the continuing grave violations of the human rights of the Baha'i and calls upon Iran to refrain from pronouncing death sentences on the grounds of religious beliefs and apostasy. In the session of the United Nations human rights commission from March 22 until April 30, 1999 in Geneva, the Union will again introduce a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran. In the draft text, which is currently under discussion, there is a clear reference to the discrimination and persecution of religious minorities and, in particular, to the Baha'i.

The treatment of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran was also specifically raised by the Union Troika during a meeting with the Iranian government on 18 December 1998. This pressure will be maintained.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: "Laboratoires Boironm" - the case of Mr Mariano Parrucci

Mr Mariano Parrucci, resident in Italy and registered on the provincial list of disabled persons available for suitable employment, was sent by the Bologna employment office to the company "Laboratoires Boironm" to fill a vacant position.

In October 1998 the above-mentioned company rejected Mr Parrucci, claiming it was awaiting instructions - which never arrived - from its head office.

This is a clear breach of the law in general and of existing legislation in Italy.

Will the Commission take urgent action to protect one of the rights of a disabled person, a right that is enshrined in the law of an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

On the basis of the information furnished by the Honourable Member, it appears that the case of the person in question does not come within the remit of Community law.

Italian Act 482 of 15 April 1968 provides that private or public sector firms employing more than 35 persons must reserve 15 % of their posts for disabled people in several categories. In the event of non-compliance, the firms must pay a fine as determined by each competent provincial committee.

It should be noted that the system of reserved placings or quotas is exclusively a matter for the Member States.

Hence it is for the interested party to lodge a complaint with the competent Italian institution in order to benefit from the provisions of the aforementioned act.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0407/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Semi-generic designations of origin for Port Wine

In his reply of 17 October 1997 to my Question E-2674/97(1), Commissioner Franz Fischler informed me that "the Commission has begun negotiations with South Africa with the aim of enforcing, on a reciprocal basis, the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of wines and spirits and, in particular, of putting an end to any generic or semi-generic use of Community indications".

Information from various sources indicates that, in the wake of those negotiations, a draft agreement has been drawn up to regulate future trade relations between the EU and South Africa.

Under the draft agreement, it appears that South Africa will be able to continue producing wine designated "Port" and/or "Porto" and/or "Port Wine" for marketing in its internal market for a period of 12 years, with no provision being made for a ban on the use of those designations of origin and geographical indications at the end of that generous period.

If that information is correct, it clearly contradicts the information supplied to me by the Commission on 17 October 1997 and quoted above.

What remarks would the Commission make on this contradiction?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission can only confirm its position as set out in its answers to Mr Barros Moura's question E-2485/97(2) and the Honourable Member's E-2674/97 on strengthening the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for wine and spirits in the context of negotiations with third countries. With regard to port, this objective was confirmed at the time of the European summit in Berlin on the occasion of the conclusion of the agreement with South Africa (see also in this connection the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-408/99(3)).

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 41.

(2) OJ C 82, 17.3.1998.

(3) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0227/99

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(3 February 1999)

Subject: Arms export rules

The German Presidency has proposed legally binding rules on arms exports. It is not yet clear whether these rules will be minimum rules and allow individual Member States to set more stringent standards, or will be aimed at achieving harmonisation and so apply to all Member States.

What is the Commission's position on common minimum rules and harmonised rules respectively in relation to arms exports?

Which of the two options does it recommend?

If it favours harmonisation, what level does it consider appropriate for such harmonised rules?

Which of the Member States' current rules on arms exports does it consider would provide a reasonable basis for harmonised EU rules on arms exports?

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

(9 March 1999)

The Presidency proposal to establish the Union code of conduct on arms on a firmer legal basis (Common Position under Article 3.2 of the Treaty of the European Union) was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 25 January but did not gain the unanimous support of Member States. The code therefore retains its non-binding legal status.

Matters relating to arms exports are dealt with by the Member States in the context of the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Commission is fully associated with such deliberations. Article 223 of the EC Treaty applies in this area and there exist no Union rules concerning arms exports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/99

by Alexander Falconer (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Costs of EU information services

What are the annual costs and total costs to the European Union, since they started, including staff time, research, development, programming, hardware (distributors' and users'), promotion, training, travel and overheads of other Union list-related information projects: CCN, ISBN, ISSN, JANET and Salbin, identifying individual projects funded?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

The Commission does not recognise any of the acronyms cited by the Honourable Member as identifying European information projects.

ISBN and ISSN would appear to be Unesco competences, and JANET and Salbin would appear to be networks based in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1062/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 1999)

Subject: Payments to flax farmers

In view of the immense hardship caused to flax farmers by the introduction of new conditions to EC flax regulations which delay payment of subsidies for up to 12 months, would the Commission not consider the possibility of granting interim part payments as a compromise which would help ease the burden on farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 1999)

The common organisation of the market in flax and hemp introduces new constraints, from the 1999/2000 marketing year, into the conditions for granting aid for fibre flax.

The recent requirements pertaining in particular to checking the minimum flax straw yield at the processing stage can indeed give rise to an additional delay in the payment of aid. In order to limit the disadvantages of this, the Commission is currently examining the possibility of introducing a system of advances on the aid involving the lodging of a security.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Improved library facilities in the European Union

In the resolution contained in an own-initiative report (A4-248/98), the Commission is urged to support the creation of libraries in the European Union under the fifth framework programme of research.

Has the Commission taken steps to create new libraries?

If it has when can those concerned table proposals for the creation or improvement of libraries and to whom should such proposals be addressed?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1999)

The Commission is positively pursuing the need for further action in response to the own initiative report A4-248/98 on the role of libraries in the modern world. It is therefore currently preparing a communication addressing a number of specific issues facing libraries and raised in the report, such as lifelong learning, copyright, services in support of literacy, and wider collaboration between libraries on access to knowledge resources and services.

In addition the Information society technologies (IST) programme in general - and key action 3 "multimedia content and tools" in particular - offers a large scope for libraries to participate in cooperative research under the fifth framework programme. Two calls for proposals are already scheduled in 1999 for the IST programme and will be advertised in the Official journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0585/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Non-Italian EU nationals lecturing in Italy

Can the Commission state what action has been taken in relation to allegations of unfair treatment of non-Italian EU nationals who are teaching in Italian educational institutions and whether it has received any assurances from the Italian authorities that the rights of all EU citizens working in Italy are being fully respected?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1999)

Infringement proceedings have been launched against Italy with regard to the safeguarding of the acquired rights of language lecturers by Italian universities.

Following the Commission's intervention, the Italian authorities addressed an administrative letter to all universities in the summer of 1998 requesting them to implement the lecturers' acquired rights. In December 1998, the Italian authorities supplied the Commission with additional information on the specific situation in a number of universities.

The Commission was not satisfied with this information and a reasoned opinion was addressed to Italy in January 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1618/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 1999)

Subject: MED Programmes

The resolution on the Court of Auditors Special report No 1/96 on the MED programmes (submitted pursuant to Article 188C, paragraph 4, indent 2 of the EC Treaty) together with the Commission's replies refers to serious irregularities and significant shortcomings in the management of the financial programmes (1992-1995).

The same resolution notes that the funding proposals for MED-Urbs (29 July 1992), MED-Campus (14 October 1992, MED-Invest (14 December 1992) and MED-Media (18 May 1993) involved spending of ECU 78 million.

Will the Commission provide a full and detailed list of all public and private bodies, undertakings, companies, firms, individuals and organisations in Member States and other countries which have received sums under the abovementioned programmes up to a total of ECU 78 million, giving details of the exact amounts concerned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

The ECU 78 million referred to in the Parliament's resolution of July 1996 were spent on financing decentralised cooperation networks for the period 1992-1995, and technical assistance to them (ARTM (agency for Trans-Mediterranean networks) Ismeri Europa FRERE Consultants the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) and the Television trust for the environment (TVE)).

Since the resolution, the Commission has regularly kept the Committee on Budgetary Control informed of follow-ups to the Court of Auditors' report, and the progress of recovery orders.

The Commission has sent additional information on the financing decisions for the various networks for the period 1992-1995 directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1603/99

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 September 1999)

Subject: Earthquake in Turkey and nuclear power station at Ankaya

On 16 August 1999 Turkey suffered one of the most disastrous earthquakes in the country's history, measuring approximately 7 on the Richter scale. Many thousands have been killed or injured in the earthquake and countless buildings have been destroyed in Istanbul, Izmit and Eskisehir.

It is worth pointing out that the earthquake comes in the wake of a long series of highly destructive tremors that have affected the wider region in recent years, leaving it to be classified as one of the most earthquake prone regions in the world.

What is the Commission's view on the proposed construction of a nuclear power station in the Turkish region of Ankaya which was also hit around one year ago by a destructive earthquake in which dozens of Turks lost their lives and serious damage was done to buildings and infrastructures over a radius of several kilometres?

Answer given by Mr. Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The information available to the Commission indicates that the Turkish authorities have not yet awarded the construction contract for the nuclear power station at Ankaya, nor does it give a date when they are likely to take such a decision.

As far as safety is concerned, the authorities have already stated that the Ankaya site was chosen after detailed seismic, geological and environmental studies. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that the assumptions underlying the proposed plans allow for a stronger earthquake than any ever recorded in the region, with the epicentre at the power station itself, rather than on the nearest fault line 20 kilometres away. According to the IAEA, the terrible earthquake in August in the north-west (though far away from Ankaya) would not have changed the results.

Although the Commission is following this project closely, it does not have any authority in the decision-making process regarding the construction work or the site. The Turkish authorities, especially the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEA) are solely responsible.