ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1094/99

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Exemption from Article 92 of the Treaty

The European Council's agreement on the Financial Perspective includes two separate forms of aid for Northern Sweden. Some areas are covered by Objective 1 (formerly Objective 6). Other, coastal areas are to receive separate aid.

Does this arrangement mean that both types of area will be exempt from EU rules on State aid pursuant to Article 92 of the Treaty?

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

(7 May 1999)

No region in the Community is "exempt" from Community rules on state aid. Even regions covered by the derogation in Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 92(3)) are subject to Community state aid rules.

The conclusions of the Berlin European Council (in line with the draft general regulation for the structural funds proposed by the Commission) mention three criteria for eligibility under objective 1 of the structural funds. Only those NUTS II regions which meet the first of these criteria, i.e. which have a GDP per capita below 75 % of the Community average, are automatically eligible for regional aid under Article 92, 3a EC Treaty, which uses the same criterion.

The other objective 1 regions, including those in the north of Sweden, can become eligible for regional aid under Article 92,3c EC Treaty if the Member State includes them in the list of assisted areas it proposes to the Commission.

Two provisions (paras. 3.10.4 and 3.1.5) of the regional aid guidelines(1) are particularly relevant for the northern Swedish regions. On the one hand, all NUTS III regions with a population density below 12,5 inhabitants per square kilometre can become eligible under Article 92.3c EC Treaty. On the other hand, all regions which are eligible for structural funds assistance can also qualify for assistance under the same article if certain conditions concerning the definition of the area are met (para. 3.10.3 of the regional aid guidelines).

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/99

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Union-busting firms

The Sunday Observer of 17 January 1999 revealed that US firms which specialise in busting trade unions are being established in the UK. The European Federation of Public Services Unions has approached the Commissioner on this issue and asked for European measures to be taken on the grounds that preventing workers from obtaining union recognition violates ILO standards and the European Treaty.

1. Is the Commission monitoring the activities of these companies?

2. Will the Commission prepare measures to prohibit the activities of these companies in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

The Commission is aware of the alleged practices of some American firms established in the United Kingdom. However, trade union rights are, in the Community legal framework, matters principally within the competence of the Member States as Article 2(6) of the agreement on social policy (Article 137.6 of the new Treaty) excludes the right of association and the right to strike from the social provisions of the EC Treaty.

As the matter falls within the competence of the Member State concerned, the Commission is not preparing any measures to prohibit the alleged practices of these companies.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1119/99

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(20 April 1999)

Subject: Commission's anti-doping programme

The use of doping in sport has increased in spectacular fashion over recent years. Professionalisation, over-commercialisation and the large sums of money involved in professional sport have turned many athletes into machines of whom impossible feats are required. As a result, sportspeople frequently resort to drugs and illegal substances which affect their health.

There is a notable variation between the different Member States in attitudes to doping: this was particularly visible in the most recent Tour de France.

In December 1998, the European Council, meeting in Vienna, stressed, in the conclusions of the presidency, the need for mobilisation against doping and for closer coordination of existing national measures by the Member States and the Commission, as well as calling on them to examine practical means of dealing with this abuse. On 17 December 1998, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to undertake a series of actions. Recently, on 4 February 1999 in Lausanne, the World Conference on Doping in Sport adopted a number of conclusions, including a call for information campaigns.

What kind of programme is the Commission drawing up on the matter, and what stage has it reached? Does the Community intend to use budget heading B3-300 to finance information campaigns on this problem?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

Following the Vienna European Council's conclusions, the German Presidency organised an informal meeting of sports ministers, a common position being adopted in preparation for the World Conference on Doping, at which the Union played a key part in obtaining the final result.

The Presidency called on the Commission to set up a working party with the Member States; the working party has already met to prepare, in particular, a Union position on the establishment of an international anti-doping agency.

The working party has yet to complete its work on drawing up a list of possibilities for Community action and on the problem of legislative coordination. The results of its work will be included in the report on sport in Europe which the Commission will present to the Helsinki European Council.

For its part, the Commission has asked the European Group on Ethics for an opinion on the problem of doping in sport. It has also provided funding for the Medical Commission of the International Olympic Committee to define priority areas which could be financed under a Community research programme.

At this stage, it is still too early to say whether budget heading B3-300 will be used to fund information campaigns. Other headings could also be used, if appropriate. The measures to be taken have still to be discussed with the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/99

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Aid for wine growers affected by severe hail storms in Massa, Carrara and Montignoso (Tuscany)

On 10 April 1998, vineyards and olive groves in the areas of Massa, Carrara and Montignoso (Tuscany) were hit by severe hail storms.

It is estimated that between 45 and 60 % of the 1998 crop has been damaged.

Wine production is crucial to the prosperity of the whole region.

The vines themselves have also suffered severe damage.

Will the Commission provide help for the abovementioned wine growers in the form of special funds, as it has done in similar cases in the past?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The common organisation of the market in wine does not make general provision for granting aid in the event of bad weather. Nor do the regulations governing the market organisation provide for either production-based or area-based aid.

The only reference to natural disasters is in Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), under which exemption may be granted from such requirements as compulsory distillation - which is not relevant in this case.

It should moreover be recalled that damage to the crop as a result of hail is normally covered by agricultural insurance.

The Community legislation currently in force provides for two ways in which, at the Member State's instigation, aid can be granted with Community financing to help wine-growers replant vineyards damaged by hail. The first is national investment aid for planting vineyards in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) 2741/89 of 11 September 1989 laying down criteria to apply under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87 on national aid for the planting of wine-growing areas(2) (the Commission must receive prior notification of such aid). The second involves aid funded jointly by the Community under the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 5(b); here, the relevant procedure laid down in the Community Support Framework must be complied with, possibly with changes to the operational programme under Council Regulation (EEC) 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 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(3). These aids may be granted under the single programming document, implemented by the Member State and the region concerned. However, the municipalities indicated by the Honourable Member are not eligible under Objective 5(b).

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987.

(2) OJ L 264, 12.9.1989.

(3) OJ L 185, 15.7.1988.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/99

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 Spain 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 E-0170/99

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Environment

The Commission has taken steps to reduce the presence of mercury in batteries and accumulators; those measures apply in the Member States as from 1 January 1999.

Can the Commission say what action is being taken to promote the use of rechargeable batteries and accumulators and to encourage scientific research in this field which might help to find a definitive solution to this problem, given that reusable batteries are more environmentally sound?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 1999)

The measures introduced by Commission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances(1) seek to reduce the presence of mercury in batteries and will take effect on 1 January 2000.

According to Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances(2), Member States have an obligation to set up programmes in order to promote the marketing of batteries containing smaller quantities of polluting substances and research aimed at producing batteries which are more environmentally friendly.

Furthermore, Member States are asked, by virtue of Article 3 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste(3), to encourage the development of clean technologies and cleaner products. Rechargeable batteries contribute to the general objective of waste management policies and environmental protection. However, presently no specific Community programme or directive promotes the use of these technologies. As the use of re-chargeable batteries has very short economic pay-back time, the Commission trusts market forces will ensure wider penetration.

The Commission has stimulated research and technological development (RTD) on high energy secondary (rechargeable) batteries for electric vehicle propulsion aimed at improving performance and reducing cost. During the fourth framework programme around 20 millions euro was allocated from the non-nuclear energy (JOULE) and industrial and materials technologies programmes to RTD on advanced batteries.

In particular, considerable progress has been made in increasing energy density and improving process technologies for lithium batteries. Although aimed primarily at hybrid and electric vehicle applications, much of this technology can be (and indeed is) adapted to small portable applications. This effort is expected to continue in the fifth framework programme (reference thematic programme 4 "Energy, environment and sustainable development", key action 6 "Economic and efficient energy for a competitive Europe") which explicitly includes research on high capacity microstorage, including energy efficient advanced secondary batteries.

(1) OJ L 1, 5.1.1999.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0212/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 1999)

Subject: Harmonisation of the right to strike in the public services

Unfortunately, the gap between trade unions and citizens using public services is widening more and more, damaging the image of the unions and harming the lives of citizens, especially when it comes to health services, air, rail or sea transport. In order to improve this relationship, which is more or less the same in all the Member States, does the Commission not consider it advisable to put forward proposals for harmonising the legislation on the right to strike, at least in essential public services?

Does it think that the functioning of the internal market could be improved by such harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 1999)

The right to strike was explicitly excluded from the scope of Article 2 of the Agreement on social policy (Article 137(6) of the EC Treaty when the Amsterdam Treaty comes into force). The Commission has no plans to make any proposal on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/99

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 Asturias?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/99

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Imports of mushrooms

Given that an Italian company has been importing pickled mushrooms and uncooked mushrooms from China for the last three years, can that company also be authorized to import mushrooms in brine for the year 2000?

What is the authorized quantity of imported mushrooms in brine?

How is this quantity calculated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 1999)

The question put by the Honourable Member concerns imports within the tariff quota for preserved mushrooms of the genus Agaricus falling within CN codes 0711 90 40, 2003 10 20 and 2003 10 30.

Commission Regulation (EC) 2125/95 of 6 September 1995 opening and providing for the administration of the quota(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) 2493/98(2), lays down specific provisions for ensuring that the quantities available - including 22 750 tonnes for products originating in China - are shared out fairly among the various traders in the Community. Part of these quantities is reserved for "traditional importers", as defined in Article 4(1)(a) of the Regulation.

A company cannot claim recognition as a "traditional importer" on the basis of imports that are not within the scope of the Regulation, but can always, within the quota, qualify for certain quantities as a "new importer" if it fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation.

Apart from the above-mentioned quota there is no quantitative limit on imports of the products in question.

(1) OJ L 212, 7.9.1995.

(2) OJ L 309, 19.11.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Automatic deportation of migrant workers

The Baden-Württemberg Minister of Justice, Mr Goll, and in particular Mr Knapp, the judge empowered to represent him, have publicly stated that they have been applying an "automatic deportation" system to migrant workers and all other foreign nationals accused of infringing Article 56 of the Treaty, which admittedly allows deportation on grounds of public policy or public security, but only in cases where the incidents and actions in question constitute a grave danger to the host State.

It does not seem that any such danger could be posed by workers from EU Member States, who, by acting in a spirit of selfless renunciation, have done credit to their countries of origin and helped to foster progress in the countries where they live and work.

The attitude of the German authorities is reflected in their management of residence permits, in which the philosophy underlying Community legislation is being exploited for domestic policy ends and which, moreover, is incompatible with the Treaty to the extent that it fails to distinguish between workers from Community Member States and those from other countries for the purposes of deportation on grounds of public policy and thus discriminates against Community migrants in relation to other European citizens.

Bearing in mind that such discrimination is based solely on criteria laid down unilaterally by the national authorities and could impede the free movement of migrant workers, could the Commission call for the law concerned to be repealed or else interpreted and enforced in such a way as to ensure that, no matter what type of residence permit they may hold, all migrant workers from EU countries, in other words European citizens, are placed on the same judicial and criminal law footing as German nationals?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0223/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(3 February 1999)

Subject: "World Vision Austria" and the misappropriation of funds

In its reply to my Question P-3879/98(1), the Commission failed to answer the issues I raised in a comprehensive and detailed manner. I am therefore taking this opportunity to be more specific in, and expand the scope of, my questions concerning "World Vision Austria" and the misappropriation of funds.

1. In her answer, Mrs Bonino said that the Commission had looked into the matter but that it possessed no information on the basis of which it could confirm the truth of the statements made. Has it now secured new information concerning the affair to which I refer, and has its level of knowledge changed since I tabled my previous question? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

2. In the light of the accusations concerning "World Vision Austria", has the Commission carried out a specific investigation, or is it planning to do so?

3. Was pressure applied, were preliminary discussions held or were other requests submitted so as to ensure that an EU aid project for Bosnia would be entrusted to the aid organisation "World Vision Austria"?

4. Who was responsible, in Austria and in the European Commission, for ensuring that the projects were properly implemented in Bosnia?

5. On another occasion, the wife of Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, MEP, said on Austrian TV that her husband could provide people seeking project aid with the right names to contact in the EU. Were such contacts used, or preliminary discussions held, with a view to securing EU aid for Bosnia, including in the case of "World Vision Austria"?

6. Are there any plans for the Court of Auditors or for the Commission's internal audit bodies to verify that the projects were properly implemented and conducted? If so, by what date will their reports be available? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 140.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/99

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 1999)

Subject: Development of the Charcas Ponds de San Lorenzo (Gran Canaria, Canary Islands)

A number of environmental groups have condemned the proposals to build a golf course in the area known as the "Charcas de San Lorenzo", which is located within the municipality of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and forms part of the "Pino Santo" nature protection area, the status of which is recognised under Canary Islands environmental law.

The enclave possesses a wide range of natural and cultural assets. Its classification as a wetland merits its inclusion as a "priority natural habitat" in Annex I of Directive 92/43(1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, under the category "Mediterranean temporary pond". The Commission has particular responsibility for the conservation of such areas. The ponds are also home to an interesting variety of migratory birds which are included in Annex I of Directive 79/409(2) on the conservation of wild birds in the European Community. The species in question include a number of birds which nest in the area (egret, heron, coot, etc.).

A citizens' group has submitted an alternative plan for the recovery and rehabilitation of the ponds in an attempt to prevent a golf course from being built, which would inevitably result in the loss of the area's natural assets.

Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

Does the Commission consider protection of the area in question to be compatible with the building of a golf course?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

The Commission had not been aware of these facts.

The site referred to has not been designated as a special protection area (SPA) for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC. Nor has it been scientifically listed as a major bird-conservation area.

This site was not put forward by Spain for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network in pursuance of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Honourable Member states that it contains a priority type of habitat as described in Annex I to that Directive (temporary Mediterranean ponds). Nevertheless, according to the reference list of habitat types and species in the Macaronesian region approved by the "Habitat" Committee, that type of habitat does not exist in the Canary Islands.

The natural appeal of that site would thus appear more national than Community.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.