ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: German Institute of Art History in Florence

The German Institute of Art History in Florence, a body under the control of the German Ministry for Research and Technology, has 33 permanent staff, 15 of German nationality and 18 of other nationalities.

Although they perform the same tasks, the non-German staff receive much lower salaries than the German staff, the latter being paid normal civil service rates, while the former receive a much lower salary based on the rate scales for the Germany Embassy in Rome.

This represents unacceptable discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Will the Commission take steps to tackle this clear case of discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 1999)

The Commission considers that all staff employed at the Institute of Art History in Florence by the German authorities are subject to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. Any differences in pay between employees should therefore be based on objective reasons independent of nationality.

It is for the employer to establish the terms of employment, including pay, on the basis of the tasks and responsibilities of the employees.

However, it should be noted that Member States may make special arrangements for civil servants, where such arrangements are justified by the nature of the legal relationship between the government and the employee or civil servant. However, the category of civil servant must be open to all European workers without discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Commission considers that it is the employer's responsibility to apply these general principles of Community law to the different individual cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Waste dump at Corliano (Florence)

A 120 000 m2 waste dump is scheduled for construction between vineyards and olive groves at Corliano (commune of Cerreto Guidi, Florence).

The project does not seem to have included any study into the state of the ground water or any pollution caused to it by sewage from the old dump. Nor are there any plans to render the subsoil impermeable although the site is traversed by watercourses and subject to frequent landslides, as local maps show.

Since the project would cause tremendous unease among the local population and be an unbearable burden for the area, which is very scenic and prime agricultural land, does the Commission intend to take urgent action to verify the feasibility of the project and its conformity with the European environmental rules in force?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the questions make reference appears to be within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1) and, in particular, appears to be a project of the classes listed in Annex II. Such projects should be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.

Directive 75/442/EEC as modified by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, on waste(2), could also be concerned on the basis of Article 4 which states that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

Furthermore, Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances(3) might apply and require, under certain conditions, an examination of the hydrogeological conditions of the soil and an examination whether the soil contamination constitutes an environmentally acceptable solution.

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1125/99

by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission

(27 April 1999)

Subject: Threatening changes in the political climate in Slovakia

The political climate in the Republic of Slovakia has been subject to change since the new government took office. The board of the Slovak journalists association, which sympathises with the HZDS of the former Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, reports that young journalists who do not share the views of the new coalition are finding it difficult to work. Apart from public criticism of journalists, ostracism at work and blocks on career development have already been noted in the months since the new coalition has been governing the country. In addition the journalists association has complained that virtually no attention has been paid at European level to the murder of Ján Ducký, the Minister for European Affairs in the previous cabinet, which has been heavily criticised by the current coalition. The press organisation points to a similarity with a pattern to be seen in the political life of Balkan states whereby hate campaigns are followed by murder.

1. Is the Commission prepared to lodge protests with the present government of Slovakia concerning the pressure being placed on members of the press unacceptable to it?

2. Is the Commission prepared, in the interest of democratic progress in Slovakia, to urge the present government of that country to halt the campaigns against politicians from previous governments and will it ask whether a judicial inquiry has been started into the murder of Ján Ducký?

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

(7 May 1999)

1. The furtherance of the independence of the media features amongst the accession partnership medium-term priorities for Slovakia. The Commission is monitoring progress in this area through the Europe agreement institutions and the regular reports. Should clear violations of media independence be detected, the Commission would raise them at the appropriate level. The Commission has no knowledge of any substantiated indications of discriminatory actions against journalists in Slovakia since the present Slovak government came into power in autumn 1998.

2. The Commission is aware of a number of criminal cases brought against political figures in compliance with Slovak law. In this context the Slovak parliament lifted the immunity of two people linked to the previous government. The Commission, however, has no evidence of any campaign to discredit politicians of the previous government. Concerning the murder of Mr Ducky, a criminal investigation has been undertaken and an arrest made.
That remains the position, which is unaffected by the successor arrangements to Directive 90/684/EEC, as
laid down in Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid toshipbuilding (
3) to which the Honourable Member also refers. Likewise, any change of ownership of
Astano would have no effect on the limitations placed on its activities.
(1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.
(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.
(3) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
(2000/C 27 E/080) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/99
by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Allocation of Structural Fund resources within Spain
The Structural Fund and, in particular, the ERDF resources earmarked for investment and received by the
Spanish Government for allocation to the countrys Objective 1 Autonomous Communities have not been
distributed fairly (not even over such a long reference period as 1994-1999) on the basis of objectivecriteria such as population size and per capita income. The reason for this is that the government assumesresponsibility for directly allocating over 50 % of the resources, which it subsequently invests in accordancewith criteria which do not correspond to the purposes which justify the existence of the Structural Funds.The result is a geographical distribution which prevents the resources from achieving the objectiveassigned to them under Community law. This state of affairs is particularly detrimental to autonomouscommunities such as Galicia. In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?
What reasons could there be under Community regulations to account for the pursuit of such a policy by
the Spanish Government?
Of the Structural Fund (especially ERDF) resources earmarked for productive investment or infrastructure
projects, what proportion out of the total allocated to Spain and in relation to the population of SpainsObjective 1 Autonomous Communities was assigned to Galicia during the 1994-1999 period?
What criteria are to be followed during the 2000-2006 period as regards the distribution of the Structural
Fund resources to be allocated to Spain and earmarked for the Objective 1 Autonomous Communities?
Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission
(9 September 1999)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 27 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/99
by GØrard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Health hazard for young children from toys containing phthalates
I should like to draw your attention to the very serious health hazard for young children posed by toys
and educational materials containing plasticizing agents called phthalates, particularly those which childrenput in their mouths. Animal experiments have demonstrated the toxicity and carcinogenic nature of these
products (which are very harmful for the liver and reproduction).
The French government has taken prompt action by imposing a one-year ban on the sale certain objects of
this kind which children put in their mouths.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/67 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0206/99

by Manuel Escolá Hernando (ARE) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Aid for Objective 1 regions in Spain

In accordance with the decision taken at the Edinburgh Summit, the cumulation of commitment appropriations for Objective 1 regions under the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund should permit a doubling of Community financial assistance for Objective 1 regions in real terms.

ECU 7 950 million was awarded to Spain under the Cohesion Fund between 1993 and 1999.

Can the Commission give a breakdown of this amount by project?

Does the Commission take the view that the Spanish Government has fulfilled the commitment to double the aid allocated to Objective 1 regions in real terms by channelling Cohesion Fund assistance to the autonomous communities concerned?

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

(10 March 1999)

Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments(1) stipulates that "for the four Member States eligible for the cohesion financial instrument, the increase in commitment appropriations for the Structural Funds must permit a doubling of commitments in real terms under Objective 1 and the cohesion financial instrument between 1992 and 1999". This Article implements the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, which also stated that " for the four Cohesion Fund Member States this means about ECU 85 billion over the period 1993-99".

The Commission has taken full account of these regulatory and political provisions with regard both to the Cohesion Fund and to the Structural Fund commitment appropriations allocated under Objective 1 for the four Member States concerned. Accordingly, there will be a doubling between 1992 and 1999 for these four Member States, taken as a whole. On the other hand, there is no obligation for the Member States to double the resources of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the regions eligible under Objective 1.

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the list of projects part-financed by the Cohesion Fund in Spain since 1993, containing the information requested.

With regard more specifically to the Cohesion Fund resources actually channelled towards the Objective 1 regions, the Commission considers that this question should be addressed to the Spanish Government.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0583/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(3 March 1999)

Subject: Commissioner Monti's membership of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission

In the light of the answers given by the Commission to my questions P-3880/98(1), E-3903/98(2) and H-0933/98(3), which suggest that the reason that the Commissioner did not declare his membership of the Bilderberg Group Steering Committee was either because that was before he became a Commissioner (even though the declaration he actually made covered previous roles), or that it was simply a private gathering (i.e. with no formal legal structure), will the Commission explain why the Commissioner also failed to declare that he is currently, and has been for some considerable time, a member of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, a properly constituted body with formal memberships, which also requires members to retire when they take up official duties?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Mr Monti has been a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) from 1988 to 1997.

The Trilateral Commission (Europe) does not require members to retire when they take up official duties.

Mr Monti did not declare this membership because the declaration presented by members of the European Commission concerns positions held in firms and foundations and the Trilateral Commission is neither.

(1) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999, p. 131.

(2) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 145.

(3) Verbatim report of proceedings of the European Parliament (November 1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/99

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 March 1999)

Subject: Use of the designation "Port" for wines produced in Australia

By virtue of the multilateral Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), particularly section 3 of part 2 of the Agreement, Article 23 and Article 24(4), and by virtue of the 1994 agreement on trade in wine signed with Australia, that country has undertaken to renounce the use of all 'semi-generic' designations including the term "Port" after fixed transitional periods and to grant exclusive and absolute protection to Community wines.

1. In this context, can the Commission provide the following information: Under the 1994 agreement on trade in wine with Australia, has that country also renounced use of the term "Port" for wines produced in that country and destined for internal Australian trade?

2. When will the transitional periods under the agreement, after which Australia will be banned from using the term Port on wines produced in that country for third countries, specifically for the EU, expire?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 1999)

1. Under the 1994 Agreement between the Community and Australia on trade in wine(1), Australia committed itself to giving up the use of all "semi-generic" designations containing a Community geographical reference, including the term "Port". This commitment, which concerns a total of 23 designations, applies both to the Australian market and export markets.

2. The semi-generic designation "Port" is one of the third group of names referred to in Article 8(1)(c) of the Agreement for which transition periods still remain to be fixed. Negotiations between the Commission and the Australian Government on fixing the duration of these periods are nearing completion and a formal decision is expected this year. This decision will also apply to Australian exports to third countries. In any event, the Agreement contains no provision enabling Australia to market in the Community Australian wines using the designation "Port". Ever since Portuguese accession, Community wine legislation has prohibited the use of the name "Port" for wines other than those originating in Portugal.

(1) OJ L 86, 31.3.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/99

by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Council Directive 96/29/Euratom in respect of the environmental implications of the deregulation of controls over radioactivity

What representations has the Commission received on the Council Directive 96/29/Euratom(1) in respect of the environmental implications of the deregulation of controls over radioactivity? What information does it have concerning steps taken by EU Member States in transposing the Basic Standards Directive into national law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 1999)

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation contains the main features of the proposal made by the Commission, based on the opinion of the group of scientific experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

Directive 96/29/Euratom replaces Directive 80/836/Euratom(2) as amended by Directive 84/467/Euratom(3) and the Commission believes that it offers better protection to workers and members of the public, based on updated scientific advice, in line with the recommendation of the relevant international organisations. This new directive cannot be considered as deregulating this area. On the contrary, several additional requirements have been introduced whose scope has been extended to cover exposure to natural radiation.

In spite of the care that the Commission put into preparing the proposed directive and into the negotiations with the institutions that led to its adoption, the Directive, like any other piece of legislation, is subject to criticism by individuals or interest groups. An overview of the criticisms was presented at the workshop entitled "Survey and evaluation of criticism of basic safety standards for the protection of workers and the public against ionising radiation" organised by the Parliament in Brussels on 5 February 1998, and is contained in the document of the same name published by Parliament.

Finally, only the Netherlands have already incorporated major parts of Directive 96/29/Euratom into their national laws. That Directive is to be transposed by 13 May 2000. Denmark has transposed some individual provisions of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.

(3) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.
91999E0503

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 503/99 by Susan WADDINGTON Peaceful resolution of dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia



Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0086
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Transfer to Italy of cultivation of the "Katerini" tobacco variety

The Commission has tabled a proposal concerning the transfer to Italy of cultivation of the "Katerini" tobacco variety. However, it is a known and scientifically documented fact that this variety is peculiar to the Pieria region, given its particular soil quality and climatic conditions, and unsuited to cultivation in any other areas since this would result in a lower quality product and an immediate fall in prices.

Will the Commission consider withdrawing its proposal concerning the cultivation of the "Katerini" tobacco variety in Italy also?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 1999)

In the report submitted to Parliament and the Council on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1), the Commission stressed the need to ensure that higher incentives were available to the quota for the best varieties than to the quota for those varieties which are difficult to market and command very low prices. The third paragraph of point B4 of that document (page 41 of the Greek version, 36 of the English version), proposes that the volume of the quota for group V (sun-cured) tobaccos should be reduced, and the corresponding quantities transferred to other groups, such as groups VI and VII, in compliance with the principle of budgetary neutrality.

The Commission's proposal to the Council for a Regulation(2) amending Council Regulation (EEC) 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(3) and fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group and Member State for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 harvests follows the lines of the reform by transferring quotas from group V to group VII in Italy.

Moreover, this transfer concerns only a small quantity of 1500 tonnes and will therefore have a minimal impact on the tobacco sector at Community level and in Greece in particular.

In view of the above, the Commission considers that its proposal is completely justifiable.

(1) COM(96) 554 final.

(2) OJ C 361, 24.11.1998.

(3) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0787/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: Competition policy in the retailing sector

Can the Commission please provide details of any initiatives recently taken or shortly to be taken in this sphere?

Is Commission policy in this area being reviewed and if so, on what basis?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1999)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-561/99.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question(1).

(1) See page 159.