ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/98

by Francisco Sanz Fernández (PSE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Culture and the Structural Funds

Can the Commission supply details of the number, type and value of the aid operations it conducted under the Structural Funds in the cultural field (infrastructure, heritage, artistic creation, books and reading, new technology, etc.) during the period 1994-98?

Can it supply the above details by operational programme?

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

(8 December 1998)

As the Commission made clear in its communication "Cohesion policy and culture - A contribution to employment"(1), it is not possible to provide precise information on assistance given to culture under the mainstream operations of the structural funds. This is because the Commission's role is to adopt and co-finance programmes. The individual projects making up the programmes are selected and managed within the Member States. In addition, the facts that the cultural sector is not homogeneous and that there are significant variations in definition and statistical classification of culture make precise and systematic data collection impossible.

Instead, the Commission has published some examples of good practice such as those included in the above communication or, more recently, in the publication "Investing in culture: an asset for all regions", which extends well beyond the structural funds and which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

Nevertheless, as regards the special case of pilot projects under Article 10 of the European regional development fund Regulation(2), the Commission has launched a programme of 32 projects on cultural innovation with a total Community financial participation of ECU 15 million. These innovative actions aim to study the potentialities of culture as a lever for local development, notably by the use of new technologies, and contribute to reinforcing Community cohesion and territorial development, notably by transfer of know-how. The projects are still in progress and they will be evaluated in order to draw operational conclusions for regional policy.

(1) COM(96) 512 final.

(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/98

by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: DG VIII - Service Commun Relex (SCR)

As a result of the restructuring of DG VIII and the establishment of the SCR the Commission's administrative structures have been rearranged. While the SCR is accommodated in Charlemagne 3 in Brussels, the Commission has decided to move DG VIII to the Rue de Genève. The two Commission services are, however, very closely linked by their working methods and functions. The files that are needed, for example, constantly have to be transported between the two addresses, causing major delays, inefficiency and considerable expense.

Why did the Commission opt for so unfavourable a geographical division of the two services?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The creation of the Service commun Relex (SCR) did not affect DG VIII alone. Staff were also drawn from DG IA and IB in large numbers. In view of the SCR's final size (650 people) it was not possible to establish it entirely in the Charlemagne, only the third floor being used for this purpose. The rest of the SCR is located in the Belliard 28/Science 14 complex.

The internal reorganisation of DG VIII, after the creation of the SCR, did not involve any further move of the services from rue de Genève. In fact, DG VIII has been located there since the evacuation of the Berlaymont. It did prove possible, however, to regroup all staff in one building (Genève 12). It is planned for DG VIII to move back to the centre (Quartier européen) at the latest when the Commission reoccupies the Berlaymont which is foreseen for 2002.

The Commission is aware that this is not an optimal arrangement. However, within the framework of its budgetary and space constraints, it has no better alternative to propose at the present time. The matter is under review within the context of Decode and the financial perspectives for 2000-06 for section V of the budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2996/98

by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Stricter European legislation on mountain roads

The transport of dangerous substances by road through mountain areas poses a number of problems and is a cause for concern among people living near the routes concerned. In May this year an accident in France on the N 205 in the commune of Servoz (Haute-Savoie), which resulted in pesticides being spilled on the road, highlighted yet again the risks to which users of the Mont Blanc tunnel and people living in the surrounding area are exposed.

In view of this, does the Commission plan to introduce more stringent European legislation for the transport of dangerous substances on mountain roads, including:

- speed limits for vehicles,

- packaging requirements (shock-resistant containers), and

- designating sensitive mountain routes on which such vehicles would be required to travel in convoy, thus allowing stricter monitoring and the enforcement of speed limits?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1998)

Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road(1) (Marginal 10599 of Annex B) allows Member States to have additional safety requirements or restrictions concerning vehicles using bridges or tunnels, and to have requirements for vehicles to follow prescribed routes to avoid relatively dangerous roads.

This provision therefore allows Member States to take specific safety measures applicable to specific areas such as a tunnel or a mountain road. The Commission agrees that Member States are best placed to take any such measures and, for this reason, does not intend to propose Community legislation applicable to the transport of dangerous goods by road in specific areas.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3513/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Counterfeit and pirated goods

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (COM(98) 25 final - 98/0018 ACC)(1), it should be noted that the system is faced with an unusual difficulty in that at Community level the scope of the rules is limited whilst the implementing procedures are to be laid down by national legislation.

For economic reasons, can the Commission harmonise that legislation so that the main provisions in this field can be applied effectively?

(1) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998, p. 63.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2931/98

by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: HGV drivers

The last few days have seen large-scale demonstrations by lorry drivers throughout the Union. Their main demands concerned working hours.

These demands are all the more urgent as the main consequence of the increased opportunities for cabotage will be to increase the pressure exerted by their companies on their actual working hours to maximise the rate of utilisation of their vehicles.

Quite apart from the fact that the lorry drivers will undergo a decline in their quality of life, we have to assess the impact of these measures on road safety. We hardly need quote the long list of road accidents attributable to driver fatigue. The indirect and often tragic consequences have been plain to see.

Will the Commission therefore consider harmonising working time for road haulage drivers at European Union level and conduct research into the impact of cabotage on working time?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1998)

The Commission intends shortly to produce a package of proposals in order to provide workers who are not currently covered by Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time(1) (the Working Time Directive) with protection against adverse effects on their health and safety caused by excessively long working hours, inadequate rest or disruptive working patterns. The package will include a proposal to amend the Working Time Directive to cover all non-mobile workers in road transport, and a proposal for a specific directive on working time for mobile workers in road transport. That latter proposal will take full account of the results so far reached in the negotiations between the road transport social partners, and it will also contain provisions for self-employed drivers and mobile workers in own account transport undertakings.

The latest Commission report on cabotage(2) indicated that in 1995 the share of cabotage operations in national markets was about 0,25 %. This situation is not expected to change sharply following the abolition of cabotage quotas after 1 July 1998. While it is obviously too early to gather statistics on the situation after 1 July 1998, recent indications reveal a reduction in the use of cabotage authorizations in 1996 and 1997 which would tend to support the conclusions of the above-mentioned Commission report.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2) COM(98) 47 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Elimination of obstacles to trade

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) creating a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene in order to remove certain obstacles to trade (COM(97) 619 final - 97/0330(CNS))(1), would the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, reach agreement to apply promptly the procedure laid down by Article 169 of the Treaty, particularly in cases in which obstacles to trade require a speedy solution, rather than opt for Article 235 as the legal basis?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

Council Regulation (EC) 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States(2) establishes an information and monitoring mechanism and provides for swift action to be taken by the Member State concerned and the Commission to ensure that the obstacles in question are removed. Article 235 was used as the legal basis because the EC Treaty provides for no powers other than those in Article 235 for the adoption of such a Regulation.

The Commission drafted the above-mentioned Regulation in response to a request from the Amsterdam European Council. The establishment of an information and monitoring mechanism to combat certain types of obstacles does not in the least run contrary to the Commission's firm intention to set strict deadlines for the launch of proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty for cases that cannot be resolved under the Regulation.

(1) OJ C 10, 15.1.1998, p. 14.

(2) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Exercise of power, Community fraud and political malpractice

The 5 November issue of an authoritative Italian weekly news magazine contains a report on a series of acts of corruption in which the European Commission is said to be directly implicated, the very institution which regularly condemns inefficiency, delays and cases of corruption in Member States.

According to the weekly magazine "Panorama", the former French prime minister Mrs Cresson, now the commissioner for scientific research, is caught up in a complex web of business and political interests.

It appears that Mrs Cresson's dentist assisted her in her work in Brussels, without a regular salary but with support from the businessman Perry, the owner of Perry-Lux, the agency now famous for being involved in cases of Community fraud, and the prospect of possible consultancy work, which, it should be pointed out, Cresson did not facilitate. Instead, Mrs Cresson appointed the dentist and his son under contracts as scientific researchers. These contracts had previously been given only to the most eminent medical and scientific authorities in Europe commissioned to write important reports.

Does the Council intend, as a matter of urgency, to respond to these accusations, and to provide all the explanations necessary to clarify a situation which discredits all the institutions of the European Union?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

It is not for the Council to comment on the allegations contained in the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: ERDF Article 10 - Portugal's inland areas

With reference to the significant size of Portugal's interior, could the Commission say how much Community support it will receive under Article 10 of the ERDF during the 1994-99 period and how much it is likely to receive during the 2000-06 financial period?

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

(15 October 1998)

Portugal is participating in 31 pilot projects under Article 10 of the European regional development fund (ERDF) Regulation(1) for the 1994-99 period. The total cost of these projects is ECU 39,4 million and ERDF support is ECU 22,5 million. A table giving further details is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament.

In addition, in the context of the selection procedure for the Recite II call for proposals for the 1994-99 period, the Commission intends to approve around 25 projects involving Portuguese partners. The corresponding financial contribution for the Portuguese parties concerned would be about ECU 9 million.

For the 2000-06 financial period, the Commission proposes to allocate 1 % of structural fund resources to innovative measures and pilot actions, of which 0,7 % would be allocated to innovative actions and 0,3 % for technical assistance. The themes have not yet been proposed. Furthermore it is not envisaged to make an ex ante allocation by Member State.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Arbitrary measures by the Turkish authorities affecting the School of Theology at Chalki, Istanbul

In 1971, the Turkish Government took a unilateral and arbitrary decision to close the School of Theology at Chalki in Istanbul. Despite promises down the years that the School would be reopened, the government also decided a few days ago to abolish the School's administrative board. This latest act is a flagrant violation of the principles of equality before the law and religious freedom, which are (supposedly) safeguarded by the Turkish Constitution and are also fundamental principles of international law.

Turkish nationals - of the Christian faith - cannot freely exercise their religious rights in Turkey. Consequently, the Christian population in Turkey is constantly shrinking and its churches and religious institutions are losing their priests and administrative boards. This deliberate policy is designed, in the absence of a Christian community, to give the Turkish authorities control over such property since, under racist Turkish law, non-Turkish citizens are prohibited from sitting on the administrative boards of such institutions.

What action will the Commission take, in view of Turkey's association with the Union, to persuade the Turkish authorities to annul their decision to abolish the administrative board of the School of Theology at Chalki and to reopen this prominent Christian institution with its worldwide reputation?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/98

by Giacomo Leopardi (PPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Studies, proposals, initiatives or legislative measures in the area of the distribution of medicines and pharmaceutical services

Can the Commission say whether it is currently considering any studies, proposals, initiatives or legislative measures in the area of the distribution of medicines and pharmaceutical services?

If it is, can it state, in as much detail as possible, what these studies, proposals, initiatives or legislative measures are?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 1999)

The Commission considers that the current legal situation concerning the distribution of medicinal products and pharmaceutical services is by and large satisfactory.

However, as the Commission communication on the single market in pharmaceuticals(1) has noted, the pharmacy service in many Member States accounts for over 25 % of the final cost (excluding taxation) of a pharmaceutical. It may be only a matter of time ( and ability to enter the market) before new systems for delivering products to the consumer - particularly through the increasing possibilities of electronic commerce - cause regulators to consider what savings might be made in this part of their expenditure on pharmaceuticals.

As a contribution to considering these, and related, issues, the Commission has commissioned a study on electronic commerce in the pharmaceutical sector. This was discussed for the first time at the round table on completing the single market in pharmaceuticals, held in Paris on 7 December 1998.

(1) COM(98) 588 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Voting rights in referenda

Does the Commission take the view that the voting rights enjoyed by EU citizens living and residing in Member States of the EU other than their own should extend to cover referenda on European issues?

Can the Commission indicate the current state of legislation in respect of the above for those Member States that allow referenda?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

Article 8b of the EC Treaty lays down that every citizen residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal and European Parliament elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

Given that citizens of the Union enjoy the rights conferred by the Treaty under Article 8, there can be no question of the interpretation of the right to vote granted as part of the new citizenship of the Union being extended to include the plebiscites mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, Community law does not prevent a Member State from deciding to grant citizens of the Union (or non-EU countries) resident in their country the right to vote in elections other than those laid down in Article 8b.

As regards the Honourable Member's inquiry as to the current state of legislation on this matter in the Member States, the Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information at its disposal in order to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: EU visa policy

In the answer to my oral question (H-0695/98)(1) the Council assured me that adoption of the acquis communautaire constituted the touchstone of the accession negotiations. The Council was providing the applicant countries with all possible logistical support for the application and efficient transposition of the Community acquis. I was also assured that "both the Community and the applicant countries have announced their intention to implement the necessary adjustments in this area as quickly as possible." The Czech government has now blocked a bill to adopt EU visa policy, and Hungary, too, is still critical of EU visa policy. Czech government representatives have taken the line that good relations with the CIS states are important to them as well as speedy accession to the EU and that they do not wish to upset these relations with visa obligations.

Is the Council aware of these developments and can it repeat the assurances it gave in reply to the previous question?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

The Council confirms that acceptance of the "acquis" of the Union by the applicant States will constitute a central point in accession negotiations.

That applies, naturally, to all subject areas, including visas.

The Council of the European Union is making every effort to help the applicant States to align themselves on the EU "acquis".

Thus:

- during the first half of 1998, the Council, in close collaboration with the Commission, completed work on defining the "acquis" and communicating it formally to the applicant States. A similar communication concerning asylum and immigration was made in 1997 under the Netherlands Presidency;

- in May 1998, the Council adopted a Joint Action establishing a mechanism for collective evaluation of the enactment, application and effective implementation by applicant countries of the acquis of the European Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. This Joint Action provides for a group of experts from the Member States to be established, with the task of preparing and keeping up-to-date collective evaluations of the situation in the candidate countries on the enactment, application and effective implementation of the acquis of the Union in the field of Justice and Home Affairs. This Group has already begun meeting;

- in addition, in the area of visas, meetings are held regularly (once per Presidency) with representatives of the applicant countries. The latest of these meetings took place on 26 and 27 November 1998 in Brussels. A seminar on the security of documents is also planned for January 1999.

(1) Report of Proceedings, July 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) and John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Aid arrangements

The owner of a grain and feedstuffs company in Denmark has got into difficulties with the system because he has not provided a full guarantee for non-food rape contracts. The guarantee required is 120 % of the EU aid per hectare for the contracts concerned. He has been fined DKR 200 000 by the EU Directorate for not providing the full guarantee in time. The fine seems unjust for such a minor offence that has cost neither the EU, the Danish state nor third parties anything. Nor was the company able to benefit from the offence.

Previously, the EU Directorate normally phoned if further guarantees were required before the end of a certain deadline. This procedure was changed without warning in 1996, and the telephone calls stopped. Application of the rules was tightened so that there could no longer be any exemption from the EU requirement that 15 % of the guarantee has to be paid in fines if the 15 April deadline is exceeded.

Does the Commission not think that this is an absurd interpretation of EU rules and administration when such a small offence can cost a company DKR 200 000?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 1998)

Commission Regulation (EC) 1586/97 of 29 July 1997 laying down detailed implementing rules for the use of set-aside land for the provision of materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or animal consumption(1) ("industrial set-aside") lays down provisions on the lodging and release of security.

Strict measures are needed to ensure compliance with the conditions laid down so as to prevent improper use of the raw materials in question on their normal marketing circuits. Member States manage and check the application of these measures, including the conditions for releasing the security.

In the case raised by the Honourable Member, it would seem that the security was forfeit in accordance with the horizontal regulation on the system of securities for agricultural products, in particular the provisions concerning evidence that the primary requirements have been met. The Commission cannot but agree with an interpretation confirming the validity of the rules, which were introduced after full consideration of the implications by Member States' representatives in the appropriate fora.

(1) OJ L 215, 7.8.1997.