ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4094/97 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Funding for Hertfordshire in 1994-1997 for SMUs and funding granted under Philoxenia

Would the Commission please inform me of the amount of funding Hertfordshire has received for SMUs and what funds have been granted for Hertfordshire under Philoxenia in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Answer given by Mr M. Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

With regard to funding for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it should be noted that, as stated in the answer to written question E-4090/97 by the Honourable Member ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 52. )), SMEs have also received some of the funds granted to research, via the 4th Framework Programme for Research.

With regard to tourism, the Honourable Member is reminded that the Philoxenia programme has not yet been adopted by the Council. In application of the Community action plan to assist tourism (Council Decision 92/421/EEC of 13 July 1992 ((OJ L 231, 13.08.1992. ))), financing of specific measures for tourism in 1994-1995 was not granted on the basis of geographical criteria (regional and local), but was based on a thematic approach: cultural tourism, tourism and the environment, rural tourism, social tourism, youth tourism. As a result, the question of allocating funding to a specific region did not apply. In 1996, the budgetary authority did not grant any funds at all for specific measures to assist tourism. In 1997, the Commission again adopted a non-territorial approach. For further information, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer given by the Commission to his written question E-4093/97 ((OJ C 196, 22.6.1998, p. 74. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/97 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Protecting the rights of taxi drivers in Italy and Europe

Is the Commission aware that a huge protest movement is spreading among taxi drivers in Italy, who complain that various Italian legal provisions - which fly in the face of various European Directives - place them at a severe fiscal disadvantage? Italian taxi drivers are, for example, prevented from recovering VAT on the purchase of both vehicles and all the 'ancillary' items (from fuel to replacement parts) required to run what is their only means of work and income. They are also obliged to ply their trade on the basis of what are know as 'administrative fares', which are not based on a realistic analysis of costs. Furthermore - to give but one of many other possible examples - in 1990 a 'decree' issued by Mr Formica (Socialist), the minister in charge of such matters at the time, deprived taxi drivers of 30% of their fuel refund, a further 30% of which was removed in 1991 by Minister Goria (Christian Democrat). In 1992 a further 30% was cut by Minister Amato (Socialist), with the remaining 10% becoming a withholding tax.

Would the Commission not agree that it should make representations to the Italian Government with a view to ensuring compliance with the relevant Community legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

The Commission is aware that VAT legislation in Italy does not allow taxi firms (whose transport operations are exempt by virtue of a temporary derogation from the principle of taxation under the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of VAT: uniform basis of assessment ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. ))) to recover tax paid on their acquisitions of goods and services. This is in keeping with the provision of the Directive whereby VAT is deductible in so far as the goods and services acquired are used for the purposes of taxed operations.

The Member State in question does, of course, have the right not to apply the derogation and to charge VAT on the transport of persons, thereby permitting recovery of the VAT paid on goods and services acquired.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4223/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Vancimuglio

The right to strike, when not abused, is a valuable instrument for workers and is recognized in the basic legislation of the Member States and labour law. Farmers in Italy are currently holding demonstrations to safeguard their legitimate interests, but the government's reaction to the protests has been disproportionate, ordering the forces of law and order to take decisive action to put a stop to them.

Since the police forces are also workers and their duty is to enforce the law, it should be stressed that the freedom to protest cannot be restricted by the threat of arrest and summary trial. Can the Commission therefore intervene in the case of the striking Italian farmers by introducing measures to safeguard and protect human and civic rights?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

At present, there is no Community legislation on the right to strike. In fact, Article 2 (6) of the Agreement on social policy which is to be incorporated into the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam clearly states that the provisions of the Article shall not apply to the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. Thus the Commission has no competence to intervene in a situation such as that described by the Honourable Member.

The Community Charter on Fundamental Social rights clearly contains the right to resort to collective action, including the right to strike, subject to the obligations arising under national regulations and collective agreements. However, in one previous case of demonstrations where acts of violence and vandalism were used, the Court of justice (in case C-265/95) held that a Member State had failed to adopt all necessary and proportionate measures in order to prevent the free movement of goods from being obstructed by private individuals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/98 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Trade and cooperation agreement between the EU and South Africa

The EU is currently negotiating a trade and cooperation agreement with South Africa. The agreement will be very important for the people of South Africa. However, experience shows that women often find it very difficult to participate in the proposed measures of a cooperation agreement.

Will the agreement foresee an obligation to study whether women actually have access to the development and economic cooperation measures set out in the cooperation section of the agreement and whether they actively take part in the proposed cooperation in fields such as human resource development, information and media, and technological and social cooperation? If so, how will the Commission do this? Will it collect gender-disaggregated data?

Agreements normally are evaluated on a regular basis. How are the negotiating partners trying to make sure that women's interests are represented in this evaluation? Will women's representatives of civil society have the right to take part in this evaluation? Will the question be discussed whether the agreement benefits women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0057/98 and E-0058/98 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (12 February 1998)

Gender issue is a priority in the Commission's development policy, and the South African government is committed to promote gender issues and to monitor progress in this area. There is no doubt that this will be mentioned and underlined in the text of the 'Development cooperation' and 'Cooperation in other areas' chapters of the agreement. The Commission will favour provisions promoting the role of women in the fields suggested by the Honourable Member. Therefore, the agreement will benefit women.

The negotiators do not foresee in the agreement any obligation to launch studies, but the Commission is committed to assessing the impact on women of any development programme already launched under the current European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa (EPRD) programme, and which will be launched in the future.

The agreement will also contain provisions on the follow-up of cooperation between the Community and South African activities. Concerning development cooperation in the framework of the EPRD, the Commission holds annual consultations with the South Africa government where results and achievements of on-going programmes are reviewed, and this practice will be maintained under the future agreement. When it comes to assessing specific programmes, the Commission usually takes into account the views of the beneficiaries. Therefore, when appropriate, the assessment of the impact on women will be done with womens' representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0501/98 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Council (17 February 1998)

Subject: Monitoring of European telephone, fax and e-mail traffic by the US

1. Is the Council aware of the substance of the report commissioned by the European Parliament entitled: 'An Appraisal of Technologies of Political Control'?

2. Is it true that the United States systematically monitor telephone, fax, e-mail and telex traffic in the Member States of the European Union?

3. Is it true that the United Kingdom serves as a relay station for this activity? If so, does this occur with the knowledge and agreement of the other Member States of the European Union? Might the President of the Council be able to throw some light on the matter?

4. Did large-scale monitoring of communications channels take place during the GATT and WTO negotiating rounds and during the conclusion of the Basic Telecoms Agreement? If so, to what extent has this had an adverse effect on the European Union's position, and to what extent has this damaged the commercial interests of European businesses?

Answer (30 April 1998)

The report referred to in point 1 has not been officially transmitted to the Council. The Council is not aware of the matters mentioned by the Honourable Member in points 2, 3 and 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

Further to Mr Fischler's answer to Written Question E-3253/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 127. )) given on behalf of the Commission on 7 November 1997, could the Commission now say how much was paid out in export refunds for live cattle exports to third countries in the period 16 October 1996 to 15 October 1997?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 February 1998)

In the period between 16 October 1996 and 15 October 1997, a provisional figure indicates that 134.9 MECU was granted in export subsidies for live animals. For 1997, an estimate based on licence applications, indicates that the Community exported 271 483 animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0167/98 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (28 January 1998)

Subject: Use of narrow country lanes by off - road '4 x 4' vehicles

Has the Commission any information on the alleged danger to many ancient country lanes in the UK from the growing use of off - road '4 x 4' vehicles for racing and sporting activities?

Is the use of off - road '4 x 4' vehicles on such roads banned in other countries such as Holland and France, and if so, in what circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1998)

The Commission does not have the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0110/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 January 1998)

Subject: Removal of barriers to trade and workers' right to strike

In November 1997 the Commission approved a proposal for a regulation, which is now being considered by the Member States, under the terms of which it would have the right to intervene if, in a Member State, a ban were to be imposed on the import of goods or if goods were to be impounded or destroyed.

Does the Commission intend to implement the proposal for a regulation regardless of the tripartite procedure, without consulting the trade unions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

In adopting on 18 November 1997 a proposal for a Council Regulation creating a mechanism whereby the Commission can intervene in order to remove certain obstacles to trade ((OJ C 10, 15.1.1998. )), the Commission's intention was to respond to the request from the Amsterdam European Council in the most effective possible way. Such obstacles may result from a Member State's action or inaction. Inaction exists when a Member State fails to take any general or specific measure which is necessary and proportionate to bring to an end actions by private individuals that create obstacles. In this connection, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in its judgment of 9 December 1997 ((Case C-265/95 Commission v France. )), the Court of Justice considered that a Member State's failure to take action was incompatible with Article 30 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 5. As the Commission stressed in its reply to Oral Question H-155/98 from Mr Schörling during question time at the February 1998 part-session of Parliament ((Debates of the Parliament (February 1998). )), the intervention mechanism proposed does not undermine the exercise of basic rights such as the right to strike, or interfere in the social dialogue conducted at national level. Indeed, the existence and exercise of the right to strike are guaranteed by national laws and are not affected by Community law. In addition, the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 upgraded the right to strike to the status of a basic worker's right.

If the Council adopts the proposal for a Regulation, the Commission, as it sees fit and on a case-by-case basis, will consider whether the Member State concerned took the necessary and proportionate measures that were available under its own legal system and consistent with that system (e.g. with the appropriate consultations being carried out) in order to bring swiftly to an end the obstacle identified by the Commission and thus to safeguard the free movement of goods.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0433/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: How to encourage positive developments in Montenegro

In the Yugoslav republic of Montenegro the process of transition to an open and democratic society is more advanced than in the other Yugoslav republic of Serbia. If Montenegro is permitted to develop unhindered in this direction, it may have a positive effect on the situation both in Serbia and in Yugoslavia as a whole. This positive development, however, is being held back both by internal and external factors.

Internally, negative pressure is being brought to bear by the Serbian authorities, both directly and through the institutions of the Yugoslav Federation. For example, the state media in Serbia have for months been passing a smear campaign against the new Montenegrin president Djukanovic and his allies.

Externally, Montenegro has to contend with restrictive rules on finance and trade, which have been imposed on Yugoslavia as a whole by the international community.

Can the Commission state whether it is possible to encourage the positive development of the situation in Montenegro, and if so, how?

Is the Commission prepared to urge both the Serbian and the Yugoslav authorities, through the appropriate channels, to respect the Republic of Montenegro's right under the Yugoslav Basic Law to order its own affairs?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (25 March 1998)

The Commission contributes to the continued positive developments in Montenegro by means of support for democratisation, human and minority rights and independent media, all of which have an important role to play. There is also clear political support by the Union for genuine democratisation efforts in Montenegro.

The eligibility of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) for inclusion in the autonomous trade regime and the PHARE programme is subject to compliance with the relevant political and economic conditionality, with which it has continued to fail to comply. As these measures and programmes apply to states (i.e. the FRY) rather than their constituent parts (e.g. the republics of Serbia and Montenegro), neither the trade preferences nor PHARE are available to Montenegro at this time. Appropriate projects might, however, be financed from the budget available for reconstruction in former Yugoslavia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/98 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Urgent European aid to mitigate the consequences of the serious communication problems affecting the city of Ferrol (Galicia, Spain) due to storm damage

On 13 January 1998 a violent storm caused an oil platform to break loose of its moorings, damaging the As Pías bridge, which is the only direct route to the city of Ferrol (Galicia, Spain). The city and surrounding district have been experiencing a serious economic crisis for some time, and the enclave has benefited from a number of economic plans geared to industrial recovery as part of the Objective 1 region comprising the Autonomous Community of Galicia.

In view of this serious situation, solidarity on the part of the EU is called for in the form of aid to mitigate the acute problems caused in this city and district.

Can the Commission provide information on urgent and extraordinary aid which might be supplied by the EU with a view to alleviating the consequences of these new problems?

Can it say what steps it intends to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

Given the nature and purpose of the Structural Funds, there is no line of funding expressly dedicated to urgent and extraordinary aid. Nevertheless, consideration would be given by the Commission to any proposal made by national or regional authorities requesting specific funding for this project within the framework of a programme under the Community support framework for Spain.

With regard to the possibility of emergency aid for those affected, the Commission must point out that this form of symbolic assistance has not been possible since the removal of Community budget line B4-3400 with effect from the current financial year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0108/98 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: Closure of an enterprise in Castelo Branco (Portugal) with the possible motive of relocation

The transnational footwear enterprise Trenogarine, based in Italy, has an industrial unit in Castelo Branco (Portugal), known locally as Ducalbi.

The enterprise Trenogarine/Ducalbi has not paid its workers since November 1997, and production has been at a standstill since 4 December 1997 due to lack of raw materials.

There are clear and substantiated indications that the management of this Italian transnational intends to close down the unit and relocate it away from Castelo Branco, possibly to a third country.

Can the Commission state whether the establishment of the Trenogarine/Ducalbi industrial unit in Castelo Branco received any support from Community funds (from the PEDIP or any other source), and, if so, whether or not the company fulfilled all of the contractual obligations arising therefrom, especially with respect to job preservation and creation and the continuity of labour in the factory.

Can the Commission also state how it will react should the management of Trenogarine/Ducalbi act on its presumed intention to relocate this industrial unit away from Castelo Branco to a third country?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

According to the information available to the Commission and confirmed by the Portuguese authorities, the enterprise Trenogarine, also known as Ducalbi, did not benefit from any support in the framework of the programmes PEDIP I and PEDIP II.

The enterprise did introduce a project to the aid scheme Sistema de incentivos a base regional (SIBR) in the first Community support framework but it was not accepted.

The Commission does not intend to comment on the hypothetical transfer of an industrial unit to another location.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0136/98 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (23 January 1998)

Subject: Employment rights for clergy and church workers

Is the Commission aware that ancient freehold rights for the clergy of the established church in England are being eroded and that, since clergy of all faiths in Britain are not protected by domestic employment legislation, rights under European Union legislation are not being universally applied to all workers within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 February 1998)

The provisions of Community directives on labour law are generally applicable to employees. However, the Directives currently in force do not themselves define the concept of 'employee'.

In the absence of a uniform Community concept in the field of labour law, the concept in the national law of each Member State determines the category of persons covered by the term 'employee' and should, therefore, fall within the scope of the provisions in question. This idea is confirmed by the case law of the Court of Justice.

This does not mean, however, that a Member State is free to restrict or extend the concept of 'employee' deliberately in order to determine the scope of each Community Directive individually. In this context it is the general concept of labour law in force in the Member States which should apply.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0128/98 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (22 January 1998)

Subject: Transport of calves and maximum weights

In the Commission's answer P-3757/97 ((OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 120. )) it is asserted, without documentary backing, that the best slaughter-calves with a live weight of 300 kg can yield a carcass weight above 160 kg.

Even if this is were correct, it would still be mathematically impossible to obtain an average of 162 kg for all calves of live weights below 300 kg.

On page 12 of the Commission's report, COM(97) 165, there is a breakdown of calves for slaughter in the Netherlands from December 1996 to 1997 week/12. Column II shows calves which, regardless of the early marketing premium, would have been delivered in those weight groups, i.e. the breakdown for 1995. These 84 464 calves had an average weight of 118.7 kg.

If Column II is extrapolated to include weight groups up to 165 kg, it is mathematically impossible to distribute the remaining 284 150 calves delivered in the Netherlands over a sixteen week period among these weight groups so as to end up with a weighted average of 162 kg for these 368 614 calves. Even if the remaining 284 150 calves are assumed each to weigh 162 kg, the weighted average will still only be 154 kg.

As of course all other calves will not be delivered at 300 kg live weight and with 'good to excellent conformation' there must have been errors in the Dutch and Belgian returns to Eurostat.

1. Will the Commission give documentary evidence of the average carcass weight for calves whose live weight is less than 300 kg?

2. Will the Commission show the distribution of calves slaughtered in 1995 in the Netherlands and Belgium, broken down by weight groups?

3. If this is claimed to be impossible, will the Commission state the estimated distribution among the weight groups for the Netherlands and Belgium of slaughter calves which can produce an average weight of 162 kg?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 February 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.