ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/99

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Hijacking in France

Is the Commission aware of an incident which occurred during the night of 18 and 19 January 1999 in Rennes when a Dutch lorry driver was hijacked by French farmers?

Is the Commission also aware that 22 tonnes of pigmeat were rendered unfit for consumption and the lorry destroyed?

Does the Commission not think that a stop must be put to such unacceptable acts and that the French authorities, who are unwilling to prevent hijackings of this nature, should forthwith pay compensation to the haulier, the shipper and the driver?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0639/99

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(16 March 1999)

Subject: Detention of Aliakram Gummatov in Azerbaijan

The "Help Alikram Gummarov" committee in the Netherlands is very concerned about Mr Gummarov and at the decreasing likelihood that he will leave prison alive.

Is the Commission prepared to ask the government of Azerbaijan for details of Alikram Gummarov and of the way in which he is being treated in prison, and is the Commission prepared to report back on this?

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

(13 April 1999)

Via regular diplomatic channels, the matter will be raised with the Azerbaijan authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0789/99

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1999)

Subject: The Falkland Islands - EU funding

How much EU funding has been received by the Falkland Islands in the past five years and through which instruments has this been paid?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

In the past five years the Falkland Islands has received [fmxeuro] 8 266 799 of Community aid from the European Development Fund (EDF): [fmxeuro] 700 000 as programmable aid, [fmxeuro] 5 066 799 under Stabex and a low interest loan of [fmxeuro] 2 500 000 from the European Investment Bank (EIB).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/99

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: European recognition for the profession of family adviser

Several European Union Member States already recognise the profession of family adviser, a practitioner who uses psychotherapeutic techniques in the provision of help to individuals, couples and family groups.

Does the Commission believe that procedures should be set in motion for the Europe-wide recognition of a profession that is bound to play an increasingly important social role in the future?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Under the approach followed by Directives 89/48/EEC(1) and 92/51/EEC(2) on a general system for the recognition of diplomas and other professional qualifications, each Member State remains free to regulate (or not to regulate) a given profession, or to decide on the level and content of the training required for the exercise of that profession. These directives are intended only to establish the legal framework for the free movement of the regulated professions within the European Economic Area, and they would of course apply to the profession of family adviser or psychotherapist if that profession were regulated in the host Member State.

Since the adoption of the above directives, the Commission has adopted an extremely restrictive approach as regards the possibility of new regulations specific to a profession. In this context, the Commission would refer the honourable Member to its reply to Written Questions E-4094/93Mr Chiabrando and Pisoni(3) and E-2133/98 by Mr Paasilinna(4).

The Commission would therefore inform the honourable Member that it does not intend to present a proposal for a regulation specifically for the profession of family adviser or psychotherapist.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) OJ C 332, 28.11.1994.

(4) OJ C 118, 9.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/99

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

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

Regions whose per capita income is less than 75 % of the average Community per capita income are described as "Objective 1 regions" and they receive significant amounts of Community aid.

To determine whether or not this threshold has been exceeded, the draft Council Regulation COM(98) 131 final(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds states that the figures corresponding to the last three years for which Eurostat has data available will be used.

At the moment the only figures available are those for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 financial years.

What are the figures for those years for Aragón?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/99

by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission

(12 March 1999)

Subject: Ratification and implementation of the Aarhus Convention by the European Community

The European Community signed the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998, after having made a statement indicating its intention to apply the Convention to its own institutions.

1. When is the Commission going to transmit the Convention for ratification to the Council and Parliament?

2. What declarations on the application of the Convention to Community institutions, if any, are going to be presented when ratifying the Convention?

3. What policy is the Commission pursuing to bring Community legislation in conformity with the Convention? What are the concrete measures and when are they going to be taken in relation to existing and future legislation in the sphere? What is the timetable for the whole procedure?

4. In particular, what binding instruments is the Commission initiating to oblige the institutions to provide access to information and public participation?

5. In what way is the Commission working for the early entry into force of the Convention?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

1. In accordance with customary practice, the Commission will make a proposal for the necessary "concluding act" to the Council and the Parliament once any necessary amendments have been made to Community legislation to ensure it is aligned to the provisions of the Convention.

2. It is too early to say what declarations, if any, will be made on the application of the Convention to Community institutions, when ratifying the Convention.

3. and 4. The Commission is currently making an intensive assessment of the relevant Community legislation with a view to deciding what amendments, if any, need to be made. So far as access to information in the Member States is concerned, Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(1) is currently being revised. Further, so far as access to information of the Community institutions is concerned, the Commission is working on the implementation of Article 255 of the EC Treaty (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam). It is anticipated that a legislative proposal will be made following entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. So far as public participation in environmental decision-making is concerned, the Commission is in the course of examining the Community legislation which may be affected and which may need to be amended.

5. 16 ratifications are needed before the Convention may enter into force. The Commission attaches great importance to ratification of the Convention and is working intensively to put the Community in a position to ratify as soon as legally possible. However, this will take some time, given that Community legislation must first be aligned so far as possible to the provisions of the Convention, to ensure legal transparency and certainty.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 1999)

Subject: Citrus fruit restructuring programme in Greece

On 7 July 1998 the Greek Government submitted to the Commission of the European Communities a DR 77 billion restructuring programme for citrus fruits aimed at improving citrus fruit production in Greece.

Since the programme is considered vital for citrus fruit cultivation in Greece, will the Commission say: Has it adopted the above programme and, if not, what is the reason for the delay? What are its views on the above programme?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

The Commission has not approved the restructuring programme for the citrus sector in Greece. The programme, however, is still under examination.

In January 1999, Commission staff visited the main citrus growing areas in Greece and the results of this visit are still being studied.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0022/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 1999)

Subject: Effects of exports in sensitive sectors

In view of the EU suggestion that non-LDC ACP States should be offered the option of accepting GSP, does the Commission appreciate that some ACP States exporting into sensitive sectors such as fisheries would suffer a decline in relative preference?

If such a GSP offered to non-LDC ACP States excluded highly-competitive developing country exporters such as Thailand, would there not be a likelihood of a challenge being issued in the WTO?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

Under the Community scheme of generalised preference (GSP) market access conditions presently offered are indeed less advantageous than those granted under the Lomé Convention. This does include fisheries products for which African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries benefit from duty free access whereas non-least developed country (LDC) GSP countries face relatively high tariffs. Application of the GSP to ACP countries will lead indeed to a loss of preferential margin and therefore might have a negative impact on their level of exports in sectors where they have still to improve their competitiveness.

On the contrary, economic partnership agreements, as proposed by the Community, would allow the non-LDC ACP not only to maintain but even to improve market access to the Community. For those ACP countries which, for objective reasons, are not in a position to join such an agreement, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that in the framework of the negotiating directives, the Community undertook to examine all the alternative possibilities in order to provide these countries with a new framework for trade between them and the Community which is equivalent to their existing situation under the Lomé Convention and in conformity with World trade organisation (WTO) rules. In particular, the Community will take into account their interests in the review of the GSP in 2004, making use of the differentiation permitted under WTO rules.

Present WTO rules do not allow discriminatory differentiation within the GSP in favour of a particular group of countries, with the exception of LDCs, 39 of them being ACP. However, a discussion of the adequacy of these rules in the light of the evolution of the international context and development policies could be foreseen in the future.

The exclusion of Thailand from the preferential benefits of GSP for the fishery sector is a result of the application of the so-called graduation mechanism, which excludes sectors and countries from the benefit of the preferential margin if a certain level of development has been reached in that sector. This mechanism, which is applicable on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria to all benefiting countries, has so far never been challenged in WTO.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0928/99

by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Transport of emergency aid to Ukraine

1. Can the Commission confirm that the import of shipments of emergency aid to the areas of Ukraine affected by flooding (especially the sub-Carpathians) has been prevented by the customs authorities since February 1999?

2. Is the Commission aware that various shipments of emergency aid have been put into store at the Ukrainian border and have not in fact been transported to the areas affected?

3. Can the Commission confirm that a suspension of the import rules in the period after the flooding has recently been followed by the reintroduction of especially strict rules?

4. Is the Commission prepared to raise this problem through its office in Kiev and endeavour to find a solution that enables the Ukrainian citizens concerned to receive the goods intended for them?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 1999)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in humanitarian operations in Ukraine. The Commission, via its specialised service for humanitarian assistance (ECHO), has altogether funded five assistance projects in connection with the floods in Transcarpathia and Western Ukraine (total value 1,28 million euro).

None of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) implementing these projects has so far reported major difficulties with local authorities (including the customs authorities). Many of the humanitarian goods required in the disaster zone have been purchased locally. The Commission has not received any representations from humanitarian agencies encountering difficulties in Ukraine in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0246/99

by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(5 February 1999)

Subject: Subsidised canned tomatoes in South Africa

What is the Commission doing to deal with the situation where subsidised canned tomatoes from the European Union are causing producers in South Africa to be pushed out of their own market?

Does the Commission have up-to-date figures on the level of unemployment caused by this phenomenon in South Africa, and will the reform of the common agricultural policy offer any opportunity to address these injustices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Trade between South Africa and the European Community in processed fruit and vegetables (chapter 20 of the combined nomenclature) is heavily weighted in favour of South Africa. In particular, the Community is one of the major markets for South African canned peaches and pears while its own products are not represented on the South African market. The only significant Community sales, of canned tomatoes, are marginal at less than 7 % of South African production, and are not therefore likely to have an adverse effect on agricultural development in that country.

Certainly, on the African continent as a whole Community exports of canned tomatoes are relatively large, but these products do not compete with the local tomato-growing sector, which is underdeveloped and focuses on fresh sales. The canned products from the Community, on the contrary, help meet basic food needs and local demand.

Community aid for the processing of fruit and vegetables commits processors to paying producers a minimum price, which is higher than the normal prices in non-Community producing countries. The purpose of this aid is to compensate for differences in the cost of the raw material used by the industry, and it does not therefore generate an unfair advantage for European manufacturers over their South African counterparts.

Community support helps maintain a traditional, labour-intensive economic activity in certain Mediterranean regions of the Community which do not have any economic alternatives.

The fruit and vegetable sector was recently reformed by Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, Council Regulation (EC) 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products, and Council Regulation (EC) 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits(1).

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/99

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.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Italy does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0051/99

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(15 January 1999)

Subject: Leonardo - Cresson

The Leonardo programme is one of the EU's most successful programmes and enables thousands of young people to gain personal experience of Europe.

This programme is implicated in the recent events, with very unfortunate consequences for the EU's credibility.

The committee responsible has decided to hand over the documents to the public prosecutor's office, with a request for an investigation into possible fraud and mismanagement.

It has been alleged in this committee that the Commissioner responsible, Mrs Cresson, has prevented a revised version of the financial audit being submitted to it. Is this allegation correct, and can the Commission provide information on what this financial report contains?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 1999)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's positive assessment of the Leonardo da Vinci programme and its importance for young people in Europe.

The office providing the Commission with technical assistance in implementing the programme has, indeed, been audited by the Commission's financial control service. As with any audit, the report drawn up by this service was subject to a contradictory consultation procedure enabling the directorate-general responsible for managing the programme to comment on, and answer questions raised by, the report.

The draft report prepared by the financial control service underwent this consultation procedure. Finalising the service's conclusions and the replies of the Directorate-General for Education, Training and Youth required a number of meetings and exchanges to ensure accuracy and transparency. At no time did the Commission try to prevent the audit report being sent to the Parliament. On 9 December 1998, DG XX's report was sent to the Parliament accompanied by the preliminary replies of the directorate-general concerned.

On 5 January 1999, the Commission gave the Chairman of the Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs the final report of the financial control service and the final replies from the Directorate-General. In addition, the Commission met with the Committee for a second time at a special meeting held on 12 January 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/99

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 Estremadura in each of the years in question?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0157/99

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Incorporation of Community legislation by Greece

Will the Commission say how many and which Regulations and Directives have not been incorporated into national law in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

Regulations are directly applicable in the Member States and therefore do not require measures for their transposition into national law.

In the case of Directives, at the beginning of March 1999 there were 64 infringement proceedings open against Greece for failure to notify measures. For further details the Honourable Member is referred to the Sixteenth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law - 1998, which will be presented to Parliament in the next few weeks.

In the meantime, the Honourable Member is referred to the Fifteenth report - 1997(1).

(1) OJ C 250, 10.8.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0974/99

by Nelly Maes (V) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Failure to apply the right of freedom of movement for workers to foreign language lettori at Italian universities

Parliament has already on a number of occasions declared itself against the current discriminatory treatment of lettori at Italian universities (in its resolution of 13 July 1995 and opinions of 15 April 1996 and 3 July 1996).

Does the Commission not consider that such discrimination violates the basic rules and principles of the European Union?

Would the Commission inform me of its position on this matter? Is it ready to take measures against the Italian authorities in order quickly to eliminate this discrimination?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0215/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Air accidents

In reply to my question (H-0036/98)(1) on a Permanent Monitoring Body for air accidents, the Commission stated that the Greek government "had submitted a draft Presidential Decree which, once implemented, will resolve the problems", whereas in reply to my Written Question of 15 January 1998 (P-0001/98)(2) on inspection of third countries' aircraft, the Commission did not know "if such inspections are performed in Greece."

Will the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that progress is being made on the subject of an organisation to monitor air accidents, and

2. whether inspections of third countries' aircraft are performed in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

1. As the information given in reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-36/98 at the February 1998 part-session(3) indicated, the Commission, after careful assessment, considered that progress in the relevant area was not satisfactory and, in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty, delivered a reasoned opinion to the Greek government in September 1998.

2. In its reply to the Honourable Member's written question P-1/98(4), the Commission provided a list of the Member States that were already participating in the exchange of information on ramp inspections. Greece has also sent a number of reports on inspections of such aircraft that have been carried out at its airports.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1998).

(2) OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 106.

(3) Debates of the Parliament (February 1998).

(4) OJ C 19, 22.6.1998.