ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Further information on the Zucchet toxic waste disposal site

In connection with my previous written questions concerning the recovery of toxic waste near the headquarters of the Zucchet plant in Rome (E-1409/97(1), E-3006/97(2), and E-1410/97(3)) and in the light of the Italian legislation on waste which the Commission has already declared to be not wholly in compliance with the Community directives in this field (reply to my Written Questions E-2350/97(4) and E-3412/97(5)), will the Commission say:

1. Whether it has in the meantime obtained information from the Italian authorities on the procedure for draining the area and whether it has established that the area has actually been drained?

2. Whether, in the light of my questions on the subject, it has checked the contract for draining the waste in the area?

3. Whether it intends to bring infringement proceedings against Italy for the non-compliance of the Italian legislation with Directives 75/442/EEC(6) and 91/156/EEC(7)?

(1) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 120.

(2) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 55.

(3) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 120.

(4) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998, p. 12.

(5) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 106.

(6) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(7) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Joint answer to written questionsE-0783/98 and E-1225/98 given by MrsBjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 1998)

As indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-3006/97(1), a letter was sent to the Italian authorities concerning the problem raised by the Honourable Member and a reply from the Italian autorities was also received by the Commission.

On the basis of the Italian reply and further to the new information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission can conclude that the point raised cannot be considered clarified. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

When, in the opinion of the Commission, a Member State is to be regarded as incorrectly applying Community law, in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty infringement proceedings can be opened against the Member State.

On the basis of the information received, the Commission is not in a position to make a specific assessment of the case. However, in general, the presence of concentrations of abandoned hazardous waste, besides being contrary to national and Community law, is to be considered as something having a potentially considerable environmental impact. The Commission agrees that it is necessary to prevent the development of such situations, and recognises that, in such cases, an effective intervention should be carried out promptly, in order to avoid bad and, sometimes, irreversible environmental consequences.

The information provided by the Honourable Member concerning the public contract procedure is insufficient to allow the Commission to take a view.

(1) OJ C 134, 30.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1659/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Express railway for Porto - tendering procedure

The Commission insisted that the Portuguese authorities suspend the tendering procedure for the construction of the express railway for Porto until the questions raised at the beginning of the year concerning the third phase of selection of bidders had been fully clarified.

It is well known that the initial explanation given by the Portuguese authorities to the Commission was considered insufficient as regards details concerning, among other things, the assessment method, the construction method and the absence of unit prices.

The tendering procedure has now been suspended for around four months and it is becoming increasingly clear that this will not only mean that the project may not be completed on schedule, but will also increase costs by an amount which has not yet been calculated in detail but which, some believe, could be up to Esc 20-30 billion.

Replying on 5 May to my Question P-0591/98(1), Mr Monti, member of the Commission, justified the Commission's intervention in the procedure on the grounds that such action was required by Community law, irrespective of whether complaints had been lodged with the national authorities and of the results thereof.

While noting the Commission's doubts regarding the replies given by the Portuguese authorities, I consider that the Commisioner has not replied to the substantive and key section of my previous question. I therefore feel it necessary to reiterate that question:

In view of the delays and additional costs which the suspension of the procedure will entail for the project, is the Commission prepared to provide compensation for such harmful consequences? What specific financial and administrative steps will it take to this end?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

Having received a complaint concerning the third phase of the Metro de Porto tender procedure, the Commission sent a first letter to the Portuguese authorities on 4 February 1998. However, as the Honourable Member says, the Commission did not consider totally satisfactory their answer dated 11 March 1998. Therefore, on 8 April 1998 a second letter was sent to the Portuguese authorities which, given the circumstances, requested a very urgent reply.

The Commission recently received an answer dated 18 May 1998 which it is currently analysing. Furthermore, a meeting was held with the Portuguese authorities on this very subject on 15 June 1998. Following this meeting the Commission will be in a position to decide whether or not to open proceedings under Article 169 EC Treaty.

The Commission would like to point out that the project is financed by the European investment bank, that therefore the Commission must give its opinion on that project, and that a favourable opinion cannot be given if there is a suspicion of any infringement of Community law.

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 98.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/98

by Wim van Velzen (PSE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Improper use of, and misappropriation of, ESF subsidies in the Netherlands

There has been indignation in the Netherlands following the TV programme "Nova" centring on the use of ESF subsidies by the Association for Supported Employment (NVSE). The programme revealed that, of the NLG 1.7 million which the NVSE received to help the disabled into work, some 70 % never reached the disabled establishments: these establishments received only NLG 2700 per participant instead of NLG 8800.

The rest of the money was spent on such things as the holding of congresses and the production of brochures. It also seems that disabled people who are already in receipt of subsidies from other sources also appear on the ESF budget.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? What does the Commission propose to do about it? If the Commission has been informed, how does it explain the fact that further subsidies have been granted to the NVSE?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the project run by the NVSE (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Supported Employment) in the Netherlands in the first round of the Employment Horizon programme. The budget of the project is not destined entirely for implementing training designed to assist people with handicaps, as the television programme in question implied.

An investigation is currently being carried out on the projet by the Dutch ministry of Social Affair s and Employment. No final declaration has yet been submitted and there is not yet, therefore, a definitive picture of the actual expenditure.

The decisions on further funding took place on the basis of new requests for new projects.

The information in the possession of the Member State gave no cause to refuse further funding to this project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1286/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Economic relations between Mexico and the European Union

Although the European Union is Mexico's second largest trading partner and the second largest source of direct foreign investment in the country, both parties consider that their economic relations are not fulfilling their full potential, bearing in mind that the European Union's participation in Mexico's total trade fell from 11.45 % in 1990 to 6.3 % in 1997.

Mexico gives less favourable tariff preferences to European countries than it does to other countries with which it has concluded agreements. For its part, the European Union has signed agreements with more than 100 countries granting them more favourable treatment than it does for trade with Mexico.

How will the Commission encourage the building of what could be a new relationship between the two parties, bearing in mind that Mexico has moved from a protectionist to an open market stance and that in the last ten years its exports have increased five-fold while its imports have risen by more than 600 %, making it the leading exporter and importer in Latin America?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 1998)

Mexico is a major partner of the Community in the Latin American region. Over the last few years, it has established preferential trade links with most of its geographical neighbours, principally under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Commission is well aware that, since the entry into force of NAFTA in 1994, this situation has created an important competitive advantage for firms established in the NAFTA countries, to the detriment of European exports, which continue to be subject to customs levies at non-preferential rates of duty. The volume of Community exports to Mexico has accordingly fallen sharply, as against a comparable increase in the volume of US and Canadian exports to Mexico.

It is specifically with a view to remedying this situation that the new agreements with Mexico, signed on 8 December 1997, aim to establish an area of free trade in goods and services. The agreements also envisage greater freedom in respect of movements of capital, the opening up of public procurement, and a framework of greater discipline in the fields of competition and intellectual property.

Parliament has recently delivered its opinion concerning these agreements which, once they enter into force, will serve as a basis for future trade negotiations with Mexico.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1306/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) , Amedeo Amadeo (NI) , Roberta Angelilli (NI) , Spalato Belleré (NI) , Marco Cellai (NI) , Gastone Parigi (NI) , Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) , Salvatore Tatarella (NI) and Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: The Echelon system and spying activities directed against EU countries

Following reports published by the European Parliament's DG IV and a number of inquiries carried out by the media, can the Commission say:

1. what proposals it intends to make to prevent EU Member States from being subjected to systematic espionage, which harms their political and economic interests and the general public's right to privacy;

2. how it views the position of the government which currently holds the presidency of the Council but is at the same time an active member of the espionage system;

3. whether it does not consider that there is a blatant conflict of interests between the two functions carried out by the State in question;

4. whether it does not consider it appropriate to take specific steps to safeguard the human rights of EU citizens, whose telephone conversations, faxes and electronic messages are the subject of indiscriminate spying activities?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

The Commission is unable to comment on such matters as they fall outside its competence as defined by the Treaty on European Union. On cryptography, however, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that in its communication to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions "ensuring security and trust in electronic communication - towards a European framework for digital signatures and encryption"(1), the Commission stressed the importance of cryptographic technologies as the essential tool for more security and trust in electronic communication. The free availability of these technologies would help to protect Member States as well as citizens against espionage.

(1) COM(97) 503.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1699/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 1998)

Subject: Presidency of the EU and the WEU

According to a decision of the European Council, the presidency of the EU and the WEU are to be combined. What arrangements are envisaged for the period of Finland's Presidency, given that Finland is not a member of the WEU?

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

(11 June 1998)

Although this matter does not concern the Commission directly, it would inform the Honourable Member of the following.

At their meeting in Erfurt on 18 November 1997, the ministers of the Western European Union (WEU) approved a decision of the Permanent Council on harmonisation of the succession of the presidencies of the WEU and the European Union. That decision was communicated to the European Union and noted by the Council on 19 December 1997.

Under that decision, where the presidency of the Union is held by a High Contracting Party to the modified Brussels Treaty, that Party will also hold the presidency of the WEU. In all other cases, the presidency of the WEU will be held by a High Contracting Party to the modified Brussels Treaty according to the current order of succession of the presidencies of the WEU. The new order of succession of the presidencies will come into force on 1 January 1999.

In light of the above and the fact that Finland is not a member ipso jure of the WEU, Luxembourg will hold the presidency of the Council of the WEU when Finland holds the presidency of the Council from July 1999 to December 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/98

by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Poole Bridge

The Commission is, no doubt, aware of the importance of the cross-Channel link between Poole in the United Kingdom and Cherbourg in France. It serves as an important route for freight and also for cross-Channel tourism. Poole to Cherbourg is a route of European importance.

Access to the Port of Poole, however, is restricted because vehicles arriving at and leaving the port have to use an old-fashioned bridge which has to be closed from time to time to allow pleasure craft to pass.

Commission officials in the past have indicated that they would look favourably upon an application for Community funding for the replacement of Poole Bridge. Is this still the view?

What advice would the Commission offer the Poole Borough Council to enable it to make a successful application for Community funding to assist in the cost of replacing the present inadequate bridge?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The project concerned does not fall within a programme for which support from the European Regional Development Fund is available and the only other European Community funds available for transport infrastructure projects are those provided for the development of the transport Trans-European networks (TEN-T) as defined in the guidelines set down in Decision no 1692/96/EC)(1). Under this legislation, the practice has been to limit funding for ports to studies for the development of port infrastructure, rather than support for infrastructure construction.

Since the proposed bridge in Poole is not on a TENs road route, its replacement would not meet other criteria for TENs support.

The Honourable Member is best advised to pursue the issue of improvement of access to the port of Poole with the national authorities since, in present conditions, no legal means exist for the Community to assist with developments.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1042/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Particular advantages for national minorities in elections

Is a provision of an electoral law giving a national minority in a Member State a particular advantage in connection with parliamentary elections, local elections and elections to the European Parliament etc. in contravention of the Amsterdam Treaty?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1998)

Article 8b of the EC Treaty, which will become Article 19 after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, lays down the right to vote and to stand in municipal elections and in elections to the European Parliament for every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national. Three Directives contain detailed provisions on the implementation of this right and provide, in accordance with the wording of the EC Treaty, for it to be exercised without discrimination on grounds of nationality. However, they do not harmonise national electoral arrangements, including any specific electoral arrangements which a Member State might apply to its own national minorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0580/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(4 March 1998)

Subject: International transport of passengers

Article 4, point 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) 684/92(1) of 16 March 1992 states that "Special regular services referred to in Article 2 (1.2), second subparagraph, (a), (b), (c) and (d), shall not require authorization if they are covered by a contract concluded between the organizer and the carrier".

Can the Commission say whether it considers it correct that special regular services which can be defined as "regular services" as mentioned in Article 2 point 1.2., second subparagraph, (a), (b), (c) and (d) and exempt from authorization, may systematically run parallel to existing regular services subject to authorization and hence take away the latter's customers?

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1734/98

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Construction of a nuclear waste site in Aldeadávila, Spain

The Spanish Government recently put a proposal to the Senate on setting up a commission to look into the possibility of building a nuclear waste site in the Ávila de la Ribera area. This proposal, like previous projects along similar lines, caused a public outcry.

There is no doubt that building this dumping ground for nuclear waste would be a highly dangerous undertaking, given that the proposed site lies in an area rich in granite, pose a grave danger to public health and the environment, place the regional economy at serious risk, and contravene international standards, given that the site is less than one hundred kilometres from the border between Spain and Portugal. Can the Commission say what stance it intends to take on this matter, given that it warrants urgent attention?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1996/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Export of greyhounds within Europe

What efforts are being made by the Commission to ensure the welfare of greyhounds when they are exported from one EU country to another and to monitor the conditions under which they are raced? And what steps are being taken to ensure that the subsidies given to Irish breeders are used in a manner which does not perpetuate cruelty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 1998)

The transport of greyhounds from one Member State to another for racing purposes should respect the conditions laid down in Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 concerning the protection of animals during transport(1).

The animal welfare conditions under which greyhounds are kept and raced within a Member State are not regulated by Community law and in consequence this aspect is a matter within the sole jurisdiction of the Member State concerned.

In relation to the subsidies in Ireland, investments were aimed at improving the housing for greyhounds. However, in the meantime, it has been agreed with the Irish authorities that no subsidies will be provided under the Operational programme for agriculture, rural development and forestry scheme 1994-1999 to finance greyhound breeding.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/98

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Subject: Therapy to combat the recurrence of drink-driving offences

As drink-driving is one of the main causes of fatal road accidents, as the European Union actively promotes accident prevention and road safety, as "Dr German Höcher's individual psychological therapy for drivers (IVT-Hö)", which was developed and tested in Germany, has been very successful in preventing the recurrence of drink-driving offences after the withdrawal of driving licences and as only 6.4 % of drivers in North Rhine-Westphalia have reoffended after completing a course of IVT-Hö, the Commission is asked whether its appropriate services are aware of this kind of therapy and the very successful results achieved with it.

Is the Commission considering the possibility of supporting this successful experiment so that such therapy may be applied in all the Member States as a means of preventing serious road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 1998)

The Commission has no specific information about the rehabilitation programme for those convicted of drinking and driving to which the Honourable Member refers.

A working group composed of Member States and Commission representatives has recently been reactivated in the framework of the High Level Group on road safety. It will, according to its terms of reference, consider programmes like those referred to by the Honourable Member, some of which have already been tried in several Member States. The working group will, in particular, assess the results of such programmes.

Until that further work has been done the Commission does not consider itself to be in a position to make any conclusive recommendation about the use of therapy with people convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/98

by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Commission support for the Epirus region office

Now that an office is to be opened in Brussels for the region of Epirus, will the Commission provide financial, technical and other aid to strengthen role of the office in increasing contact and cooperation between the poorest region of the Union and the Union's institutions?

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

(3 August 1998)

The Commission provides assistance from the Structural Funds to operations and projects to develop the Epirus region through various sectoral programmes, through the regional programme and through Community Initiative programmes.

As regards the Epirus region's representative office in Brussels, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that funding such an activity is beyond the scope of the operational programme for Epirus, so no contribution to the office's running costs is envisaged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2012/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Role of Eurostat in drawing up Agenda 2000

Has Eurostat been taken into account in the drawing-up of the proposals for the Structural Fund regulations?

Answer given by Mrde Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The technical preparation of the proposals for regulations on the reform of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006 was carried out by a Commission interdepartmental working group chaired by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy and Cohesion. Although Eurostat was not directly involved in the work of this group, it was informally consulted on a number of occasions on the pertinence and availability of the statistical indicators which are to be used under these proposals.

In accordance with Commission procedures, Eurostat was subsequently formally consulted on the final drafts of the proposals prior to their adoption by the Commission.