ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3235/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Funding for third countries from EU programmes intended for Member States

Although section III ('internal policies') of the financial perspectives is intended to support measures in the EU Member States, regulations are continually being adopted to provide funding for third countries from programmes intended to meet the needs of EU Member States. This is despite the fact that section IV ('third countries') is intended solely for countries outside the EU and is already providing generous funding for them.

Can the Commission give the reasons for this situation and will it consider ways of limiting the diversion of funds towards countries outside the EU from programmes designed to cover the Union's own major needs?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

A number of Community programmes in the fields of education, training and youth (Leonardo da Vinci, Socrates, Youth for Europe) falling under Heading 3 (Internal Policies) of the financial perspectives have recently been opened up to the participation of associated non-member countries.

The gradual opening up of Community programmes to the participation of associated third countries is seen as an important step in their preparation for possible membership of the Community. This type of cooperation offers the associated countries and their citizens an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the policies and working methods of the Community, thereby enabling them to accept the acquis communautaire in the various fields more easily.

The relevant funding mechanisms are designed in such a way that the cost of the associated countries' involvement is covered by their own contributions, which are paid each year into the general budget of the Community in accordance with the terms and conditions of participation. This revenue, which is allocated exclusively to covering the costs of participation, is thus additional to the resources of Heading 3 of the Financial Perspectives.

In some cases, the rules allow for the contribution from the third countries to be supplemented by Community resources. These supplements are covered by resources from Heading 4 (especially the PHARE programme) instead of Heading 3.

In this way, the appropriations earmarked for funding programmes initially intended to meet the Community's internal needs are not affected by the participation of non-member countries in those same programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Plans to exterminate grey squirrels

According to a report published in the Italian newspaper L'Unità on 27 July 1997, the United Kingdom and Belgium have asked the European Union to support a programme to eradicate the grey squirrel because they are worried that the indigenous red squirrel is being ousted from increasingly wide distribution areas. In Italy, a Turin University project, authorized by the National Institute for Wild Fauna, has been blocked by a judge because it infringes national hunting legislation.

Has the Commission financed the above or similar projects to eliminate grey squirrels? Introduction of the species has created an ecological problem recognized by independent experts but was not brought about by the animals themselves. Does the Commission not therefore believe that funding should be provided only for programmes that would avoid slaughter by removing the grey squirrels to other places or reducing their capacity to breed?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1997)

The grey squirrels (sciurus carolinensis) are introduced aliens to Europe. They are native to North American hardwood forests. They became established in the wild in the United Kingdom around the 1890s. In 1913 they were introduced in Ireland and, relatively recently, in Italy.

The species is not listed in the annexes of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). Consequently its protection does not fall under Community competence.

There is no known evidence of detrimental interactions between grey squirrels and any species or habitats of Community importance. On the other hand, the detrimental impact on the native red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) is well known and documented.

A major concern over the continental population of the grey squirrel (in Italy, and anywhere else that it is introduced into the wild) is that there is a potential for it to spread and become a significant threat to other native wildlife. That is the main reason for which measures to control the populations of this exotic species have been implemented. There are no known Community-funded projects or programmes that have provided direct support to these kind of measures.

Alternative control methods, such as immunocontraception, are currently being investigated at national level.

To conclude, it appears that the management of grey squirrel populations falls within the competence of Member State authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3513/97 by Jup Weber (ARE) to the Commission (29 October 1997)

Subject: EU forestry strategy

On 30 January 1997, Parliament adopted a resolution on EU forestry strategy (doc. A4-0414/96 ((OJ C 55, 24.2.1997, p. 22. ))), calling on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal by January 1999 in accordance with certain recommendations, including:

at the international level, submission by the Commission of proposals on the following:

- an active EU role in negotiations concerning the trade in timber,

- an action plan to combat ecological and social dumping in relation to imports of timber into the EU,

- work towards an international convention on forests,

- problems associated with eco-certification,

- support for a forest conservation policy for transition and developing countries.

It does not appear from the documents submitted by the Commission that the drawing-up of a forest strategy is included in its programme of work for next year.

Will the President of the Commission state whether work on the forest strategy has already started? If it has, what progress has been made, given that almost half of the period stipulated by Parliament has now elapsed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is referring to the Parliament resolution adopted on 30 January 1997 calling on the Commission to make a legislative proposal on European forestry strategy within two years of the date of adoption of that resolution.

The Commission is currently carrying out, in close cooperation with the Member States, an in-depth examination of the objectives and procedure for such a strategy, although this was not expressly mentioned in the Commission's 1998 work programme.

The Commission intends to comply with the date indicated in the Parliament resolution and present a forestry strategy to Parliament at the beginning of 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: ERDF innovative measures

The Commission has chosen eight areas for action or cooperation as part of the ERDF innovative measures (Article 10 of the ERDF regulation) for the 1995-99 period. They are: new sources of employment, culture and heritage, promotion of technological innovation, the information society, spatial planning, urban development, internal inter-regional cooperation and external inter-regional cooperation.

Will the Commission state, for each of the above areas and for each Member State (or group of Member States in the case of transnational projects) how many projects have been submitted, how many of them have so far been approved and how much money, in ecus, has been granted?

How much funding is it planned to allocate to each of the eight areas for the 1995-99 period?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

Tables giving the information requested in respect of six of the eight themes mentioned are being transmitted directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. So far some 133 MECU have been allocated to these six themes from the European regional development fund out of a budget of 190 MECU for the period 1995-1999. Certain projects also benefit from contributions from the European social fund or PHARE. Of the 1 483 projects submitted under the six themes, 161 were approved. Regarding internal interregional cooperation (Recite II, budget 110 MECU) and external interregional cooperation (Ecos-Ouverture, budget 70 MECU), these programmes are yet to be finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3374/97 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Council (23 October 1997)

Subject: Evidence of compulsory health insurance cover - obligation to present the E 111 form

To enrol at French institutes of higher education, such as the Conservatoire in Paris, students need the E 111 form as evidence of compulsory health insurance cover. Persons who are privately insured or entitled to benefit do not have this form.

Despite this, the presentation of the form is required at the time of enrolment. Evidence obtained from a private health insurance fund or benefit agency is not recognized.

What measures will the Council take to enable evidence provided by private health insurance funds to be recognized?

Answer (15 January 1998)

The Council notes that students are not at present covered by Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (latest version published in Official Journal No L 28, 30 January 1997). This has also been noted in the Commission's Green Paper on Obstacles to Mobility which was discussed by the Education Council on 26 June 1997.

However, the European Commission has submitted a proposal for an amendment of that Regulation in order to expand its coverage to include students, among others; the proposal is currently being examined at the Council.

It should be pointed out that, as the case law of the Court of Justice makes clear, Articles 127 and 6 of the Treaty prohibit any discrimination between Member State nationals as regards access to vocational training in the Community.

It should also be noted that Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students stipulates that 'Member States shall recognize the right of residence for any student who is a national of a Member State ... provided that the student is enrolled in a recognized educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course there and that he is covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State'.

It is the task of the European Commission to ensure that Community legislation is properly applied and, ultimately, it is for the Court of Justice to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the EC Treaty the law is observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Dissemination of information in the context of projects for certified quality beef

It was only in the last few days that the information disseminated at the first European conference on 'European quality beef' (held in Venice in April 1997) came to the attention of the author of this question. During the conference press releases printed on headed paper with images of the European flag and the words 'financed with a contribution from the European Community' were distributed, with titles such as 'Why meat is an essential food' and studies signed by a J.D. Maxwell entitled 'The vegetarian diet as a risk factor in tuberculosis in the United Kingdom'.

Does the Commission know about these press releases and does it agree with the subject matter?

Is the Commission aware that to define meat as 'an essential food' is banned by a number of rules introduced by the AEEP/EASA (European Advertising Standards Alliance) and that common sense dictates that if such a claim were true, it would mean death for about ten million people in the EU countries and hundreds of millions of people worldwide? On the contrary, research carried out by the WHO and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food (the latter published in the Financial Times on 15 September 1997) maintain that it has been proved that excessive consumption of meat is 'dangerous' and may lead to cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

When will the Commission fund an information campaign to promote a diet in which animal proteins are reduced or eliminated, thereby encouraging European food producers who are moving in this direction?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

The Commission made a financial contribution to the European Beef Congress at Venice but bears no responsibility for the contributions of the scientists invited.

The Commission takes the view that the wide availability of products of animal and plant origin ought to enable individuals to select a healthy, balanced and diversified diet covering their particular nutritional needs.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3227/97 by Dominique Souchet (I-EDN) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Authorization to market plant-health products

In the light of the Court ruling delivered on 12 November 1996 in Case C-201/94 concerning pharmaceutical products, where the competent authority of a Member State has evidence that a plant-health product which has marketing authorization in another Member State and a plant-health product for which it has itself already issued a marketing authorization are manufactured by the same company or by licensees of that company, and where the two plant-health products, while not being identical in every way, have nevertheless been manufactured in accordance with the same formula, using the same active ingredient, and have the same physical and chemical effects, must the competent authority in question, where there are no counter-considerations relating to the effective protection of human life and health, grant a marketing authorization to the imported plant-health product?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2431/97 by Mr des Places ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 8. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3492/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (29 October 1997)

Subject: Agenda 2000

Agenda 2000 proposes a phasing out over a transitional period of regions currently eligible under Objective 1 which exceed the 75% threshold. It also proposes that areas currently eligible under Objectives 2 and 5b, which would no longer be eligible under the future selection criteria, should also retain financial support for a transitional period. What is the Commission's view on the length of these transitional periods and will they be the same for Objective 1 and non-Objective 1 areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

The Commission has proposed increasing geographical concentration by reducing the percentage of the Union population eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 from 51% to between 35% and 40%.

This concentration would be achieved through strict application of the threshold of 75% in the case of Objective 1 and by recourse to simpler, more transparent and more specific criteria for the various types of areas concerned by the new Objective 2.

For the areas currently eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) which will not satisfy the future eligibility criteria, the Commission proposes a period of transition during which support from the Structural Funds would be gradually reduced. In the case of Objective 1, this transitional support would be substantial and long-lasting while for the new Objective 2 it would be more limited in time. The details of the two transition periods will be specified in the proposals for new Regulations on the Structural Funds which the Commission will present early in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Business Tourism

In 1996 the Commission had a report on business tourism prepared by Horwath & Axe; what, in detail, have been done to implement its recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-3391/97 ((See page 96. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3118/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (9 October 1997)

Subject: Directives on pension schemes

1. Does the Council share the suspicions of a number of senior citizens' associations who feel that the introduction of the euro will cause an alarming drop in the value of very many pensions within the European Union?

2. Is the Council aware of statements by Mr van Amelsvoort, former Dutch State Secretary for Financial Affairs and currently president of the KBO (Catholic senior citizens' association), that inflation of the European currency can be caused by wage demands in France and Italy because pensions in those countries are directly funded from tax revenue and those countries will not be able to pay the pensions of senior citizens without an increase in taxation?

3. Is the Council aware that one consequence of the situation referred to in question 2. will be that in a number of countries of the European Union, including German and the Benelux countries, pension fund reserves will in the long run lose billions off their value? If so, what measures is the Council considering to put a halt to such undesirable consequences?

4. Is the Council prepared to instruct the Commission to submit directives which the pension scheme of all Member States must satisfy, so that pension schemes in all Member States are reasonably comparable in value?

Answer (19 January 1998)

1., 2. and 3. The Council does not share the view that the introduction of the euro will affect the value of existing pension schemes in the Member States or will cause inflation eroding their purchasing power. On the contrary, the Treaty provisions aim to guarantee that the euro will be a low inflation currency and the Council has recently adopted binding rules under the Stability and Growth Pact in order to safeguard sound budgetary policies in Member States during phase three of EMU, which should eliminate inflationary pressures on that account.

4. The question of a possible reform of pension systems in Member States notably in the light of demographic changes is being studied in the Economic Policy Committee. This Committee, however, has not yet formulated its conclusions on the issue for consideration by the Council. Furthermore, the European Parliament itself, in its resolution on the convergence criteria for EMU and the funding of security systems, recently called upon the Commission to submit to it a report on demographic trends in relation to the different forms of existing pension insurance systems. This matter has been considered in an orientation debate during the meeting of the Council (Labour and Social Affairs) held in Luxembourg on 12th June 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Restoration of the bay of Santander

Work on the complete restoration of the bay of Santander is to commence shortly.

The work is scheduled to be carried out in three phases and the total cost of the project will be more than PTA 14 billion. Contracts for the first of these three phases have already been awarded.

What share of the total sum is to be cofinanced by the European Union?

Under which funds (ERDF or Cohesion) or budget heading will such cofinancing take place?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1997)

On 3 May 1996 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission an application for part-finance for work on the first stage of the project 'Complete rehabilitation of Santander Bay '. The budget for this stage was estimated at PTA 4 030 million. The Commission took a decision approving thes application on 14 July 1997. The European Regional Development Fund will contribute part-finance of ECU 17.72 million (PTA 2 821 million) towards the total volume of the first stage, which is ECU 25.32 million.

An application for part-finance from the Cohesion Fund for the second stage of the project, which will cost PTA 4 750 million, was submitted on 29 April 1997. This is now being considered.

Spain has provided the Commission with no information on finance for the third stage of the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/97 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Pilot projects intended to explore new avenues of economic and social development

With the aim of encouraging new methods of job-creation, the Commission has allocated ECU 103 million to 106 pilot projects to explore new avenues of economic and social development in the cities and regions of the European Union. These pilot projects include actions in the following areas: new forms of employment, interregional cooperation and cultural themes, promotion and innovation, regional initiatives concerning the Information Society and innovatory actions to promote urban development.

Will the Commission say whether any of these projects are intended for Portugal, and if so, which ones?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

Concerning Article 10 of the European regional development fund Regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) (innovative measures in the field of regional development), there are at present 28 pilot projects involving Portugal that have been finalized for a total budget of 19.2 MECU. 26 of these are interregional cooperation projects with a total budget of 15.9 MECU. There are two pilot projects where the financial allocation is specifically for the Portugese regions and this budget amounts to 3.3 MECU. A table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat gives a complete list of the approved projects and the breakdown of resource allocation.

In addition there are several programmes involving Portugal that are nearing finalization such as RECITE II, ECOS-Ouverture, and pilot actions in spatial planning. Further information in relation to these programmes will be published in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (24 November 1997)

Subject: Necessary conditions for the introduction of the euro in the EU Member States

A heated controversy has broken out at European level about the important issue of whether or not it is compulsory for the currencies of Member States of the Union to enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism at least two years before these countries introduce the euro.

Will the Council say whether the currencies of the countries which wish to adopt the euro at some point are obliged to participate in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, or whether Member States are not specifically and categorically required to do so if they wish to adopt the single currency and enter the third pase of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)?

Answer (16 February 1998)

Those Member States which fulfil the necessary conditions for adoption of the single currency will be designated on the basis of Article 109j(4) of the EC Treaty.

Subsequently, those Member States with a derogation which fulfil the necessary conditions on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 109j(1) of the Treaty shall have their derogations abrogated under the conditions laid down in Article 109k(2).