ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3375/97 by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission (22 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 Commission take to enable evidence provided by private health insurance funds to be recognized?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

The Commission would first of all draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that form E 111 is issued under the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 ((These Regulations were updated by means of Regulation (EEC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) 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 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. )) to persons with health insurance cover under a general social security scheme of a Member State.

Form E 111 serves as evidence that the bearer is entitled to healthcare benefits in kind, to be paid for by the Member State in which (s)he is insured, which are provided by the Member State on whose territory (s)he is temporarily resident under the legislation applying in that Member State (in accordance with Articles 22 and 22a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71).

These arrangements apply only to statutory health insurance cover and not to persons with private health insurance or to special schemes for civil servants. That is why the procedures currently laid down under the Regulations for the provision of healthcare during a temporary stay in another Member State, for which form E 111 must be submitted, cannot be applied with respect to persons with private health insurance or members of special schemes for civil servants.

As long ago as 1992, the Commission submitted a proposal aimed at extending the scope of these Regulations to include special schemes for civil servants ((OJ C 46, 20.2.1992. )). Unfortunately, this proposal has not up to now received the unanimous support of the Council which it requires.

In the meantime, the Court of Justice has ruled that the Council, by not introducing any measures concerning the free movement of workers, has not fully met its obligation under Article 51 of the EC Treaty ((Judgment of 22 November 1995 in Case C-443/93 Vougioukas [1995] ECR I-4033. )). The Council is currently trying to find a compromise which would make it easier to adopt the above-mentioned proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3366/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Floods in the EU: awareness-raising campaign

The recent floods in the Spanish Mediterranean region in the last week of September have caused major personal and material damage. In the Valencian community, Murcia and Andalucia, material damage is estimated at PTA 20 000 million, according to preliminary provisional figures issued by the Union of Small Farmers.

These natural disasters are not sporadic occurrences, but recur periodically, because of the geomorphological and climatic characteristics of the area, and they affect other Member States such as Italy and France. Furthermore, they have serious environmental consequences, since they accelerate the rate of soil erosion and deforestation, in areas already suffering from very advanced ecological deterioration.

Is there any possibility that the Commission might carry out an awareness-raising campaign both for the general public and for social and economic operators, involving training programmes for experts, informing businesses of the correct steps to be taken, early-warning networks for the civilian population, systems for controlling and inspecting drainage capacities, etc. so as to forestall the consequences?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3362/97 and E-3366/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) can finance the restoration of agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and the introduction of appropriate prevention instruments (Article 5(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1988. ))). In this context, measures to train experts and increase public awareness of prevention could be eligible, as could other work carried out with the same aim.

However, the appropriate financial resources must be provided for in the Objective 1 or 5(b) Community support frameworks to permit the part-financing of the most suitable of the measures to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is willing to examine proposals from the Member State to solve the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member within the framework of the funds available under the Community support frameworks for the regions concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1997)

Subject: Purchase of property in other Member States

What is the position regarding the purchase of property in one of the other Member States of the EU? Are non-nationals of a Member State entitled to the same conditions as local residents?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3215/97 and E-3216/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The Honourable Member's questions concern, without reference to a particular Member State, the purchase of real estate in one Member State by nationals of another Member State. The Commission would recall earlier parliamentary questions concerning property acquisition in particular Member States ((See, for example, written questions No E-1032/96 by Mr Böge, OJ C 297, 8.10.1996; No 2491/95 by Mr Sakellariou, OJ C 66, 4.3.1996. )).

In general terms, the principles of equal treatment of citizens and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment on grounds of nationality (Article 6 of the EC Treaty) within the sphere of application of Community law cover the acquisition of immovable property by the nationals of other Member States.

The restrictions on the acquisition and use by a national of one Member State of land and buildings situated in another Member State were abolished with a view to the realisation of the freedoms of workers, establishment, services and capital ((ECJ, 30.5.1989, Commission v. Greece, 305/87, ECR (1989) 1461; ECJ, 14.1.1988, Commission v. Italy, 63/86/ECR (1988) 29;ECJ, 6.11.1984, Fearon v. Irish Land Commission, 182/83, ECR (1984) 3677. )). Access to property and tenancy of real estate is a corollary of those rights and of the right to reside in another Member State in accordance with Article 8A of the EC Treaty.

While the EC Treaty in no way prejudices the system of ownership in Member States (Article 222), rules will remain subject to the fundamental rule of non-discrimination at the basis of Articles 6, 48, 52 and 59 and measures to give effect to certain of these Articles, as well as the prohibition of all restrictions, subject to the usual exceptions, on cross border capital movements (which includes the acquisition of real estate) provided in Article 73b.

As to the acquisition of secondary residences, the final act of Accession of 1994 contains the following joint declaration: 'nothing in the acquis communautaire, prevents individual Member States from taking national, regional or local measures regarding secondary residences, provided that they are necessary for land-use planning and environmental protection and apply without direct or indirect discrimination between nationals of the Member States in conformity with the acquis'. Several Member States (Denmark, Austria, Finland and Sweden) have specific legislation on secondary residences ((Protocol No 1 on the acquisition of property in Denmark; Articles 70,87 and 114 of the 1994 Accession Act. )).

The Commission monitors the general application of national legislation on purchase of property to ensure it does not contravene the above-mentioned principle.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/97 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Council (28 July 1997)

Subject: Non-payment of Socrates funds

The Commission intends to pay the beneficiaries 30% of the appropriations for Action 1 of the Socrates programme only on submission of the final report. This will involve considerable disadvantages for the universities taking part:

- Firstly, the announcement of how the funds are to be distributed is not made until after completion of the application phase, whereas with other EU aid programmes this information is made known before applications are made.

- Secondly, the breakdown in the allocation represents a clear departure from the practice in previous programmes.

- Holding back 30% of the grant until a period long after the end of the programme's financial year (30 June 1998) forces universities to engage in prefinancing into a third financial year. Since the final report will not be drawn up until 15 November 1998, the remaining funds are unlikely to be allocated before early 1999. However, the internal administrative expenditure on prefinancing the remaining appropriations will be out of all proportion to the size of the total sum. This is, in fact, an unnecessary and additional burden on the administrative bodies which already have far too much to do (offices in other countries, Socrates coordinators etc.), particularly as - thanks to the planned reduction - the Youth Technical Assistance Office in Brussels will scarcely be in a position to evaluate the final reports within an appropriate period of time and arrange for the final payments to be made.

1. Why does the new Socrates programme differ from its predecessors in terms of details of how aid is granted and the breakdown of money allocated?

2. Is the Council aware of the serious disadvantages this will cause universities and the relevant administrative bodies and, if so, how does it intend to reduce this additional bureaucracy?

Answer (22 December 1997)

Management of the Socrates Programme is the responsibility of the Commission. Articles 4 and 5 of the basic Decision (No 819/95/EC) stipulate that the Commission shall be responsible for implementing the programme with the assistance of a committee composed of two members designated by each Member State and chaired by the Commission representative.

The Commission, to which the same question has been put, will provide the desired information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3291/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: OECD negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Agreement (MIA)

In its current form the MIA would conflict with national and international policies supporting environmental protection and sustainable development. Both Agenda 21 and the Framework Convention on Climate Change emphasize the important contribution of technology transfer to environmental protection, but after adoption of the MIA national legislation in this field could infringe it.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the objectives of Agenda 21 and other international environmental protection agreements are not jeopardized by the MIA?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1997)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of other national and international policies aiming at improving environmental protection and sustainable development. In no case it is intended that the multilateral investment agreement rules undermine, weaken or question the objectives of the Agenda 21 or other international agreements on environment, or the ability of parties to implement effective environmental policies domestically. The Commission actively participates in the discussions, in particular with the view to ensuring an appropriate integration of environmental considerations in the agreement, and is therefore fully committed to achieve a corresponding result.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Extension of the Munich-Deggendorf-Prague motorway

Passenger and goods traffic on the Munich-Deggendorf motorway (A 92) has increased considerably since the opening of the Czech border. It is now planned to extend the motorway to Prague.

1. Is the EU involved in any way in the extension of this motorway? Is the extension being financed with funds from the EIB, EBRD, regional aid, the PHARE programme or any other programme?

2. Is the Commission aware of any calculations or studies of increases in traffic and thus exhaust gas emissions, particularly from heavy goods vehicles, as a result of the extension of the A 92 to Prague?

3. Is the Commission aware of any environmental impact assessments (EIAs) or studies on the effects on environmental protection in the Bayerischer Wald? What anti-noise measures will there be for the benefit of local residents, particularly on the Landshut-Deggendorf section?

4. Have alternatives to extension of the motorway been considered for heavy goods traffic, eg greater use of combined transport for this section or improvement of the rail infrastructure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1997)

1. No Community funding has been either requested or granted for the extension of the A92 Munich-Deggendorf motorway beyond Deggendorf to Pilsen and Prague. The European regional development fund does not in any case co-finance the construction of any motorway in Germany.

The Bavarian authorities have informed the Commission that they have no knowledge of any concrete plans to extend the motorway. The Commission is aware of discussions which are under way in the Czech Republic on the possibility of such a project, but no decision has yet been made on the matter. Priority is at present being given by the Czech government and the Community to the extension of the D5 motorway Prague-Pilsen-Nürnberg, which lies on Pan-European transport corridor No IV.

2. and 3. The Commission is aware that there has been a substantial increase in traffic on the Czech section of the existing E53 road from Pilsen to Deggendorf, which is close to its full capacity. It is not aware of any studies on traffic and emissions increases resulting from an extension of the A92 to Prague, nor of any environmental impact studies in the Bayerischer Wald.

4. The Commission is not aware of the extent of consideration of alternative transport modes on this route, but is, in general, concerned to ensure the modally balanced development of infrastructure links with Central and Eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2431/97 by Edouard des Places (I-EDN) to the Commission (8 July 1997)

Subject: Authorization to place plant protection products on the market

In the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 November 1996 in Case C-201/94 on pharmaceutical products, where the competent authority of a Member State possesses evidence that a proprietary plant protection product with an authorization to market in another Member State and a proprietary plant protection product for which it has already issued a marketing authorization are manufactured by the same company or by its licensees, and that those two products, though not absolutely identical, have at least been manufactured according to the same formula and using the same active ingredient and that, furthermore, they have the same physical and chemical effects, must that authority, unless considerations such as the effective protection of human life and health militate against it, grant that marketing authorization to the imported plant protection product?

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

Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market ((OJ L 230, 19.8.1991. )) requires Member States to prescribe that plant protection products may not be placed on the market and used in their territory unless they have authorized the product.

In the case of parallel imports of plant protection products, the Commission sees no reason why a solution should not be applied similar to that adopted by the Court of Justice in its judgement of 12 November 1996 in Case C-201/94 Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals. This would mean that if a Member State has evidence that a proprietary plant health product authorised for marketing in another Member State and a proprietary plant health product for which it has already granted a marketing authorisation are manufactured by the same company or its licensees, and that these two products, though not absolutely identical, have been manufactured to the same formula using the same active ingredient, that Member State must allow the imported proprietary plant health product to benefit from its marketing authorisation, unless any differences between the two products in question alter the effects of the product in terms of the requirements referred to in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 91/414/EEC (such as effectiveness, phytotoxicity, effects on health and the environment).

A similar question has been raised in a case currently pending before the Court of Justice (Case C-100/96 The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte British Agrochemicals Association Ltd ((OJ C 145, 18.5.1996. ))). The Advocate General gave his conclusions in this case on 2 October 1997. No date has yet been fixed for the Court's judgment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/97 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Ban on battery farms in some Austrian Länder

The animal protection legislation in the Länder of Vienna, Tirol and Salzburg bans the keeping of laying hens in battery systems or provides for this method to be banned in the next few years.

Because of market conditions, a ban on battery systems in these Länder leads to enormous distortions of competition and to distortion of trade flows.

1. Does the Commission plan to repeal Directive 88/166/EEC ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. )) and instead adopt a regulation to achieve uniform animal protection provisions in Europe?

2. How does the Commission view the distortions of competition caused by a ban on battery systems in some regions?

3. Does it consider that egg producers using battery systems in the Länder where there is provision for a ban are discriminated against with regard to the existing marketing standards for eggs?

4. When the animal protection laws of Salzburg and Tirol were notified why did the Commission not object to the ban on the keeping of laying hens in battery systems contained in this legislation?

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

Article 9 of the Directive 88/166/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in battery cages ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988. )) requires the Commission to submit a report on scientific developments regarding the welfare of laying hens under various systems of rearing, accompanied by any appropriate adjustment proposals to the Council.

The scientific veterinary committee presented its report on the welfare of laying hens to the Commission at the end of last year. It is the intention of the Commission to present this report together with a proposal for legislation on the welfare of laying hens to the Council before the end of this year.

Directive 88/166/EEC allows Member States to go beyond the minimum standards as laid down in the Directive, subject to the respect of the general requirements of Community law.

There is no discrimination against egg producers using battery cages in the Bundesländer concerned under the existing marketing standards for eggs as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 ((OJ L 173, 6.7.1990. )) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 ((OJ L 121, 16.5.1991. )).

The Commission, and also the Member States, have been informed about the intentions of the Bundesländer concerned for the adoption of such legislation through the notification procedure provided in Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations ((OJ L 109, 26.4.1983. )). The Commission has not yet finalized its response to this notification.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2935/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Council. Failure to invite Cyprus to attend the Luxembourg conference on EU enlargement



Official Journal C 134 , 30/04/1998 P. 0038



WRITTEN QUESTION E-2935/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (16 September 1997) Subject: Failure to invite Cyprus to attend the Luxembourg conference on EU enlargement The Greek 'Tempo-Newsweek' publication reports that the Luxembourg Presidency is organizing a conference on EU enlargement on 1 September 1997 to which all applicants for accession, apart from Cyprus, have been invited. This is a particularly strange omission. Why has Cyprus not been invited to attend? It is to be hoped that this has nothing to do with the island's well-known 'political problem' the term (used by some to designate the occupation by the Turkish army of 37% of Cypriot territory), which has been further highlighted by the disregard for international law displayed by the Italian Foreign Minister Mr Dini, in his observations concerning 'two republics in Cyprus'. Answer (22 December 1997) The Luxembourg Presidency has never held a 'Conference on EU enlargement', as referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/97 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Accreditation of European journalists in the various places of work of the institutions

The rules governing the accreditation of European journalists in the various places of work and in the various institutions are not very transparent.

For example, a Luxembourg journalist accredited to the European Parliament in the three places of work cannot use this accreditation to gain access to the Commission in Brussels, whereas a journalist accredited to the Commission in Brussels does have access to the European Parliament in Brussels and Luxembourg.

Similarly, accreditation to Parliament is not valid for meetings of the Council, whereas accreditation to the Commission covers access to Council meetings in both Brussels and Luxembourg.

Would it not be in the interests of an open and effective information policy to make provision for uniform press accreditation for all the institutions of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (10 November 1997)

The rules governing the accreditation of journalists to the Commission are set out in the Practical guide for journalists, published by the Commission, a copy of which has been sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. It should be pointed out that accreditation is a purely practical arrangement for issuing passes to correspondents of the press and radio and television who pay frequent - even daily, visits to the press room at the Commission. Accreditation also gives them access to the Council and Parliament. Apart from this accreditation which is common to the three institutions, the Council and Parliament apply their own rules. Accreditation is in no way evidence of professional qualifications and all journalists have access to the Commission press room on presentation of their national press card.