ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The present agreement covers activities up to 30 April 2000. The programmes consist of 52 approxi-
mately 2-minute spots, 222 3,5-minute inserts for after news bulletins, 64 8-minute information featureson practical implications for citizens of the main European policies (including 22 about the euro), and nine13-minute features on external relations issues. A provisional programme listing is being sent directly tothe Honourable Member and to the Parliaments Secretariat.
The Commission is responsible for steering and coordinating activities, through an internal assessment
arrangement and regular monitoring meetings with Euronews, which are attended by Parliament repre-sentatives. The Community and Euronews each have full non-commercial retransmission and reproductionrights for the productions. The Commission ensures that Euronews broadcasts accurate and balancedinformation, particularly with regard to the positions and activities of the European Institutions. However,this takes place with due respect for editorial freedom, which is fully guaranteed to Euronews as anindependent channel. As a result, in addition to broadcasting via the channel itself, the Community alsobenefits from the production of audiovisual products which it can then put to further use to feed andenrich the content of its other audiovisual initiatives.
All programmes are retransmitted via the satellite broadcasting system and are therefore directly available
to, and useable by, 900 TV stations in 47 countries, in addition to the 500 programme user institutions of
Europe by Satellite (EBS). The programmes constitute a thematic audiovisual resource which can be utiliseddirectly for Commission visit programmes, by speakers and representation offices, and by the 125 Com-mission delegations throughout the world.
(2000/C 27 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 September 1999)
Subject: Draft budget 2000  expenditure relating to persons working with the Commission
In 1998, the budget heading expenditure relating to persons working with the institution (i.e. the
Commission) was ECU 1 641 555 000 (ITL 3 100 billion).
Why is this expenditure set to increase from ITL 3 100 billion to ITL 3 500 billion in 2000  a rise of
over EUR 202 million (approximately ITL 400 billion)?
In the light of the austerity heralded by Mr Prodi, whereby the Commission was supposed to keep
expenditure within 1998 levels, can the Commission explain the reasons for this increase?
(2000/C 27 E/201) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1703/99
by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(29 September 1999)
Subject: Draft budget 2000  expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the Commission
In 1998 ECU 246 138 470 (ITL 477 billion) were spent on special functions carried out by the institution
(i.e. the Commission).C 27 E/164 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
(2000/C 27 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1383/99
by Pedro Aparicio SÆnchez (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Information on the Structural Funds
Following the adoption and publication of the new regulations laying down general provisions for the
Structural Funds and of the regulations for the individual Funds, pursuant to Article 7(3) of EC (Council)Regulation No 1260/99 (
1), the Commission should have established the breakdown by Member State of
the available commitment appropriations.
Can the Commission provide information on the notification made to the Kingdom of Spain, in the form
of the full text, including, for Objectives 1 and 2, the distinction between appropriations allocated to theregions and those allocated to areas eligible for transitional aid?
(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(6 September 1999)
In accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,
on 1 July 1999 the Commission fixed indicative breakdowns by Member State of the commitmentappropriations available for the programming under Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and for assistance under theFinancial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance outside Objective 1 regions. The Decisions in question werepublished in Official Journal L 194 of 27 July 1999. The relevant extract from the Official Journal hasbeen sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat.
As provided under Article 7(3), for Objectives 1 and 2 these breakdowns distinguish allocations of
appropriations to regions and areas benefiting from transitional support.
(2000/C 27 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1384/99
by Per Gahrton (Verts/ALE) to the Council
(1 September 1999)
Subject: EU defence policy  implications of the Cologne Summit
Controversy has arisen in Sweden over the interpretation of some of the decisions taken by the European
Council at the summit held in Cologne on 3-4 June 1999 concerning the further development of thecommon foreign, security and defence policy. Will the Council therefore say whether the Cologne decisionmeans that the WEU is to be integrated to some extent into the EU? Does the Cologne decision mean thatthe EU will be able to carry out military operations only following a UN Security Council resolution orcould situations arise in which the EU also intervenes militarily without a UN mandate? Does the Colognedecision represent a step in a process towards a common EU defence policy and a common defence or is itthe absolutely final step in giving the EU a military capability?
Reply
(22 October 1999)
1. The Treaty on European Union provides for closer institutional relations between EU and WEU, with
the possibility of the WEU integration into the EU, should the European Council so decide.
2. The Cologne European Council addressed the capacity of the Union to effectively undertake crisis
management and tasked the General Affairs Council to prepare the conditions and the measures necessaryC 27 E/36 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0545/99

by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Tendering by the state-owned Danish bus company COMBUS A/S

Considering that the state-owned Danish bus company COMBUS A/S has forced a large number of private tenderers to close down, does the Commission consider it in keeping with EU competition rules, including the ban on predatory pricing, and EU rules on state aid that COMBUS A/S has increased its share of the Danish market for contract bus services from 22-25 % to 35-40 % by offering cut prices financed by state aid earmarked to cover pension contributions and wages for officials, by funding of the deficit mentioned in the remarks on Bill 1998-99 L 127 corresponding to loss of one third of the company's net capital, and by further state aid laid down by law in December 1998? If not, will the Commission initiate an inquiry?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Allegations of state funding by undertakings may entail an examination under the Community regime governing the payments of state aid by administrations. However, the Commission is only obliged to start formal procedures under Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty if it has doubts about the existence and compatibility of state aid. In particular the application of Article 92 para 1 requires that the aid distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings and affects trade between Member States.

With regard to land transport, full market access is not provided for directly by the EC Treaty, but must according to Article 75 be achieved through Community legislation. In the case of regular bus services, competition on Community level is only open for international services and a restricted number of national services (services for workers, pupils and students - until 11 June 1999 only in frontier zones) (Council Regulation (EEC) 24/54/2 of 23 July 1992 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State was declared void by the Court of justice for formal reasons on 1 June 1994 (case C-3882, European Parliament v. Council [1994] ECR I-2081), but its legal effects were upheld until such time as the Council adopted new legislation on the matter. Council Regulation No 12/98 of 11 December 1997, replacing Regulation No 2454/92, is to be applied as from 11 June 1999(1)).

In the event of alleged state aid to regular bus services in geographically restricted areas on the territory of a Member State, therefore, the effect on trade between Member States must be established and verified in each individual case. Whenever the effect on trade between Member States cannot be proven, state aid rules are not violated.

(1) OJ L 251, 29.8.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: The Spea Autostade project and MonteBeni (Florence)

Spea Autostrade recently submitted the final plans for a major project involving the construction of a road link over MonteBeni in the Firenzuola municipality (Florence).

The project appears to be totally contrary to the plans for the environmental rehabilitation and improvement of the area which have been announced, given that earthmoving work will be going on at a height of 1 260 metres (while the summit stands at 1 263), approach roads capable of carrying large numbers of heavy goods vehicles will be required and the excavation area is to extend beyond that already existing, thus leading to the destruction of wildlife habitats.

MonteBeni is subject to a large number of hydrogeological, landscape and forestry restrictions and has also been classified as a type B), C), D) and - partially - A) "protected area" by decision of the Regional Council.

It has also been included in the provincial land-use master plan as a possible site for the establishment of parks, reserves and protected natural areas of local interest, has been put forward as a site of Community importance and has been classified as a protected wildlife sanctuary by the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry.

The project submitted by Spea Autostrade appears to be extremely destructive and to be contrary to the purposes for which the areas is intended.

Does the Commission intend to take action without delay, in compliance with Community rules, to prevent the destruction of a site which is extremely valuable both in environmental terms and from the point of view of its wildlife population?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 92/43/EEC(2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora may be relevant to the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

However, on the basis of the information available, the Commission is not able to identify the exact nature of the project and is not in a position to assess the situation described by the Honourable Member. At the moment, the Commission is only able to confirm that the area of Monte Beni is a site of Community importance proposed by the Italian authorities under the terms of Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC: code IT5140002 "Sasso di Castro e Monte Beni".

In the light of the above, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about the project and to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/99

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Incorporation of Directive 93/16 into Spanish law

The European Parliament's Committee on Petitions has deemed admissible Petition No 605/98 on the inadequate incorporation into Spanish law of Directive (EEC) 93/16(1), which has the effect of putting certain professional groups at a disadvantage when they seek recognition of their qualifications.

Can the Commission say whether or not their complaint is justified? Has Directive 93/16 been properly incorporated in its entirety into Spanish national law? If it has not, in what respects is the incorporation deficient, what attitude may the Spanish Government be expected to adopt and what procedures will be applied by the Community authorities if the situation needs to be remedied?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 1999)

Directive 93/16/EEC, which is referred to by the Honourable Member, provides for the automatic recognition of a number of qualifications in specialised medicine mentioned specifically by Article 5 or Article 7 of the Directive. Medical specialisations which are not listed in Directive 93/16/EEC must be examined on an individual basis. In their examination, the authorities of the host Member State must compare the training undergone in the Member State of origin or provenance with their own training requirements. If necessary, additional training can be required under Article 8 of Directive 93/16/EEC.

The Commission confirms that a number of doctors holding specialist qualifications awarded in a Member State other than Spain have had severe difficulties in having their qualifications recognised by the Spanish authorities. Some doctors are still awaiting a decision.

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Spain as provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty for incorrect transposition of Article 8 and failure to transpose Article 18 of Directive 93/16/EEC. Having found the reply of Spain to the reasoned opinion delivered during these proceedings to be unsatisfactory, the Commission has decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0709/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the average Community inhabitant are classed as "Objective 1 regions" and are entitled to substantial Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation, COM(98) 0131 final(1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

The Director-General of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) disclosed at the meeting of Parliament's Subcommittee on Monetary Affairs of 17 February 1999 that the statistical data corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 already included the data corresponding to the hidden economy of the regions analysed, although he did not say exactly what criteria had been followed in order to estimate or assess this type of activity.

What proportion of the regional income corresponds to the "hidden economy" and what proportion to the "regular economy" in Galicia in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1085/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(13 April 1999)

Subject: Petroleum-products suppliers

According to my information, Austrian petroleum-products suppliers differentiate very strongly between their customers. Whereas fuel is supplied on favourable terms to their contract distributors, those retailing at a discount are required to pay an additional premium. The practice has once again become apparent subsequent to the price reduction conceded under pressure of public opinion. Contract distributors are now taking deliveries of fuel at savings of up to 40 groschen per litre. In the circumstances known to me, prices to discounting distributors have, however, been increased by 57 groschen per litre of super plus. With distributors now forced to choose among a more than restricted range of suppliers, they have no option in most cases but to accept the prices on offer. I believe the tactics of the petroleum-products suppliers are extremely dubious in terms of competition law.

I therefore put the following questions to the Commission:

1. Is the Commission aware of the situation described?

2. How does it assess it in relation to competition law?

3. Will the Commission take action in response to this situation?

4. If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

1. The Commission is not aware of the price differentiation practised by Austrian petrol companies at the wholesale level as described by the Honourable Member.

2. Community competition law applies to agreements or concerted practices of undertakings which have as object or effect the appreciable restriction of competition (Article 81 of the EC Treaty ex Article 85) and abusive market conduct of dominant undertakings (Article 82 of the EC Treaty ex Article 86). It is impossible to assess the market conduct described by the Honourable Member in application of the above rules without knowing facts about the markets and companies concerned and, in particular, whether the petrol companies acting as sellers on the Austrian wholesale market enjoy market power. Price differentiation does not as such infringe Community competition law.

3. and 4. The Commission is aware that the Austrian competition authority is currently looking into Austrian petrol markets and the market conduct of petrol companies. It is the Commission's policy on cooperation with national competition authorities (see notice of 1997(1)) that checks on compliance with the competition rules should wherever possible be carried out by a single authority. Accordingly, the Commission does not intend to take action for the time being.

(1) OJ C 313, 15.10.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/99

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Italy's Istituto Poligrafico

Italy's Istituto Poligrafico is under scrutiny on the grounds that it may have fallen foul of European anti-trust law.

The Commission is investigating injections of capital, in particular the one received at the beginning of 1996 by Cartiere Miliani (which is 97,34 % controlled by the Istituto Poligrafico), and the commercial advantages which the Istituto Poligrafico is reportedly able to secure as a result of its exclusive contracts with the Italian Government. Such practices may contravene the rules relating to state aid.

In a letter to the Italian Government the Commission takes the view that the 54 billion lire increase in capital granted in 1996 to the Istituto Poligrafico and to the company it controls may constitute state aid.

The investigations being carried out by the Commissioner responsible for competition also cover the 250 billion lire increase in capital which was approved in 1998: Cartiere Miliani appears to have recorded losses of 187 billion lire in 1997 and to have used up all its capital. This act therefore appears to constitute state aid insofar as it does not seem like the type of investment which would have been made by a private investor in a market economy.

At the end of its letter the Commission points out that, without such aid, the Istituto Poligrafico and the companies it controls (Cartiere Miliani and Verres) would have recorded substantial losses.

Can the Commission state the reasons put forward by the Italian Government to justify the financial dealings involving the Istituto Poligrafico?

What action would the Commission take if the Istituto Poligrafico were to be found guilty of contravening European anti-trust laws?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/99

by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Collapse of the ancient walls of Viterbo

Controversy has arisen in Viterbo over reconstruction of the ancient walls, two stretches of which, measuring some dozens of metres, collapsed in January and March 1997.After so many months the reconstruction has practically not started, so that further damage has been caused (by the devastating effect of the bad weather, infiltration of water etc.) to the monumental complex of the castle walls.

Viterbo, the ancient and noble "City of the Popes" has one of the most extensive historical centres in the whole of Europe:

1. Is it true that European Union funds have been allocated for reconstruction of the parts of the walls that have collapsed and the long stretches that are still in danger of falling? If so, what amount was involved and to which Italian body was it granted between January and December 1997?

2. During the same period were official steps taken by Italy on the subject, were requests for appropriations received and, if so, from whom?

3. Does the Commission not think that, following on-the-spot assessment of the extent of the damage and the vast scale of the cultural heritage in question, it should take autonomous and prompt initiatives, including financial ones, to come to the rescue of a city whose splendid historical memory deserves to be safeguarded and of one of the most important cultural sites of Europe and thus of the world?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

In view of the fact that the city of Viterbo is excluded from the zones admissible for financial support by the structural funds, no financial support could have been given for the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

There was no financial support given for the historical walls of Viterbo in 1997 within the framework of the Commission's programme in favour of the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage. No requests were submitted by the local, regional or national authorities for the above mentioned project in the framework of the Raphael programme for 1997. It should be noted that the themes dealt with by the Raphael programme for that year were different from that of the project in question.

On the basis of Article 128 of the EC Treaty, the Commission's action and programmes in the field of culture and cultural heritage are based on the principle of subsidiarity and can only encourage cooperation between the Member States, which are exclusively responsible for the protection and preservation of their heritage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Organisations in arrears and EU grants

It has been reported in the press that certain tenants of properties belonging to the IACP in Rome are seriously behind with their rent payments. The tenants include a number of party and association headquarters. Amongst those most in arrears are the occupants of huge premises located at piazza S. Maria Liberatrice 45, scale e/f, namely the Stadion cooperative and the Kemir association.

In some quarters it is thought that the cultural activities promoted by those bodies do not actually take place.

In view of the above, would the Commission say:

1. whether the above organisations receive grants from the European Union;

2. what bodies or offices are responsible for monitoring any funding provided by the EU to those organisations;

3. whether the organisations in question have received grants in the past and, if so, on what scale;

4. whether or not late payment of rent can be reconciled with the receipt of a grant from the EU;

5. what its general view of the matter is?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

Neither the Stadion cooperative nor the Kemir association, located at the address given, are known to the Commission's accounting departments. It should be pointed out that Rome is not on the list of areas eligible to benefit from the Community's Structural Funds.