ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Common defence against "technological sabotage"

It is clear that, these days, both public and private information systems are highly vulnerable since they are closely dependent on technology. This dependence means that security networks, financial institutions and even centres of power are extremely vulnerable to attacks on their computer systems.

Consideration must be given to the risks currently posed by "technological sabotage" and the implications which such activities could have, particularly in the finance, energy and communication sectors.

In view of the interdependence which living in a Community involves and in view of the attacks which could be carried out by means of the "technological sabotage" described above, does the Commission not consider that it should propose a Community typology of technological contraventions so as to enable all the Member States to defend themselves jointly against this new type of illegal activity?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1998)

The Commission is well aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. "Technological sabotage" a specific form of computerised crime ("hacking") - is on the list of the new hazards arising from world-wide computerisation.

During a recent poll Europe's citizens stated that they considered it necessary for Member States to cooperate more closely on the fight against crime. The European Union, its Member States and also those of the Council of Europe have already moved towards a more concerted approach in this area.

On 28 April 1997 the European Union adopted a plan of action(1) for the fight against organised crime, which thus coveres crimes linked with high technology. As part of this the Commission has financed a study on the subject. That study advocated specific lines of action within the Union, while the follow-up to it is currently under discussion.

Furthermore, the Council of Europe is currently drafting a convention covering both the substantial and procedural aspects of the fight against "computer crime".

Work is also in progress at international level within the group of the eight most industrialised nations in order to provide practical answers. In December 1997 those states adopted a communique and an action plan for improving their cooperation in this area, more particularly via contact points and adequate staff training. A network of contact points that is available round the clock was set up under that plan of action. The Commission is keeping a close eye on all of its activities in order to avoid duplication of effort and to promote synergies.

(1) OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1260/98

by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Safety in children's playgrounds

With reference to the answer by Commissioner Emma Bonino to Written Question E-1871/97(1), will the Commission say what progress has been made in drawing up the general standard for safety requirements and test methods (pr EN 1176-1) and the standards for additional requirements and test methods for certain specific types of equipment (carousels, swings, rocking equipment, slides and runways)?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The standardisation programme for playground equipment implemented by the European Commitee for Standardisation (CEN) has almost been completed, although it has taken a little longer than intended.

The general standard for "safety requirements and test methods" (pr EN 1176-1) is currently the subject of a formal vote by the national standardisation organisations which are members of the CEN.

As for the standards for additional requirements and test methods for certain specific types of equipment, these are all the subject of formal voting procedures at the CEN - except as regards carousels, for which the procedure is about to start.

According to the responsible officials at the European standarisation body, the relevant set of standards should be available before this summer. However, this will depend on the as yet unknown outcomes of the votes.

(1) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 107.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: SMEs

The Commission's report to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the coordination of activities to assist small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the craft sector (COM(07) 0610)11.6.1998 (p. 58) briefly describes the Europartenariat and Interprise programmes aimed at encouraging international cooperation among SMEs.

Are statistics available showing which regions have obtained the best results as regards opportunities for cooperation agreements and potential partners in relation to both types of competition?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

On average around 400 companies from a host region and around 1 600 visiting companies from other regions participate in a Europartenariat event. The Commission estimates that on average 30-40 % of the companies of the host region conclude agreements with their visiting counterparts.

Concerning the Interprise programme, around 30 events of this kind are organised each year with on average 100 participating firms in each event. In other words, around 3 000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) participate in this programme each year. Based on questionnaires sent out to the organisers of these events, the Commission estimates that more than 10 % of the participating firms conclude agreements as a direct result of these events.

Although all organisers of events have to send in evaluation reports of the events, the nature of these reports and the statistics they provide are such that they do not allow for a direct comparison between regions concerning the success of the programme.

The Commission intends to launch a major evaluation study of the Europartenariat programme later in the year. This study is intended to give a better insight into the qualitative and quantitative results of the programme, and a better understanding of the factors (regional or national policies, geographical position, state of the economy) that have a favourable or detrimental impact on these results.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1700/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Banana tariffs

Thank you for answering my written question E-0896/98(1). However, since the answer was unsatisfactory, I am compelled to resubmit my questions on the proposal for reform of the banana common market organization. Given the need for a transparent and open information policy on the part of the Commission, I should like to have accurate and detailed answers to my questions.

1. What methods, calculations or empirical data have been used to determine the autonomous tariff quota for Finland, Sweden and Austria?

2. What are the mathematical and finance policy reasons for the difference between ECU 300 per tonne for the autonomous tariff quota and ECU 75 per tonne for the remaining quotas?

3. Does the Commission have any proposal to introduce a tariff system without licences and a standard tariff rate?

4. If so, what will the rate be?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

There is no autonomous tariff quota specifically for Austria, Finland, or Sweden. The quota is set for imports into the whole of the Community and not for individual Member States.

The additional 353 000 tonnes proposed is applicable to the whole of the Community although the reason for introducing it is to take account of the enlarged Community following the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. It corresponds to the average net imports into these three Member States in the period 1991-1993.

On 26 June 1998 the Council reached a political agreement to set the within-quota duty for the 353 000 tonnes autonomous tariff rates quota (TRQ) at 75 ECU a ton. The figure that was formerly proposed by the Commission was 300 ECU a ton but the Council revised the figure to 75 ECU a ton. This new level means that the autonomous tariff quota will be at the same rate as the basic tariff quota of 2 200 000 tonnes.

The Commission does not have any proposal to introduce a tariff system without licences and a standard tariff rate as it is not obliged to do so following the World trade organisation (WTO) ruling nor does it believe it would comply with its obligations towards Community producers and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 36.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Linguistic discrimination in delegations

Can the Commission explain why the regular publications, press releases etc. issued by its delegations in Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Ljubljana etc. only contain texts in the local language plus French and English?

This information policy is all the harder to understand since German is in many cases the most widely spoken and understood Western foreign language in these countries, often more so than English. Moreover, in most of the former Communist countries there are relatively large German-speaking minorities who could be informed of EU policies by means of German-language publications.

When will the Commission instruct its delegations to abandon their practice of linguistic discrimination and give the German language equal status with English?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 1998)

German is an official Community language which can be used by anyone without discrimination in contacts with the Commission. This also holds true for the delegations in the former Communist states.

Information material is produced to convey information to specific target groups whose language knowledge determines the language versions required. General information is produced in all official languages and is also available in German on request from the delegations.

The additional information work carried out independently by the delegations is produced for a local public in the relevant national language and does not necessarily require translation into one, several or all official languages of the Community. Discrimination against German-speaking groups abroad is neither intended nor implied: these groups usually speak the language in question and translations are not provided for minorities from other member states either. Where a German-speaking group is targeted in particular, the relevant material is produced in German.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/98

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Council

(29 June 1998)

Subject: Persecutions of Christians in Pakistan

On 27 April 1998 a Punjab District Court sentenced the Pakistani Christian Ayub Masih to death for blasphemy following remarks he had made about "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie. Over 100 Christians, including children, are currently under sentence of death for blasphemy.

In view of the numerous and often poorly substantiated charges of blasphemy made against Christians in Pakistan, will the Council renew its pressure on the Pakistani Government to address the problem of abuse of the blasphemy law, to abolish the death penalty and to restore the joint electoral system, under which fairer representation for all religious groups would be possible?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The existence and arbitrary use of the blasphemy law in Pakistan have been a matter of great concern for the Council over the past years. The European Union has carried out a number of demarches to address this issue and has systematically raised the issue at its institutionalized political dialogue consultations with the government of Pakistan.

The Council must acknowledge that in spite of earlier assurances by the Pakistan authorities that the blasphemy legislation would be amended in such a way that misuse would be rendered impossible, recent events show that the basic problems remain unchanged and that religious intolerance seems to be unfortunately on the rise in Pakistan. Therefore, the EU is going to consider in the competent Council bodies how best to address this issue in the near future. The European Parliament will be informed of the outcome of the Council's decisions. In this context, the questions of the death penalty and of the restoration of the joint electoral system will also be addressed by the appropriate Council bodies in early September 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0256/98

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 1998)

Subject: European firms paying for forbidding documents in Turkish public tendering procedures

Is the Commission aware that European firms taking part in public tendering procedures in Turkey have to pay to receive the bidding documents?

Is it customary for firms in the EU to have to pay for the documents in a public tendering procedure?

Is the Turkish requirement in line with the commercial agreements between the EU and Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

Community law does not prevent contracting entities in the Community from requesting a financial contribution from interested candidates in exchange for the relevant tender documentation in the context of public procurement procedures provided that such contribution is set at a reasonable level and that it is limited to the cost of providing the documentation.

The Commission is grateful for the information provided by the Honourable Member on the behaviour of the Turkish authorities. Nothing in Article 48 of Decision No 1/95 of the Community-Turkey association council of 22 December 1995 implementing the final phase of the customs union prevents the Turkish authorities from requesting a financial contribution from interested candidates in exchange for the relevant tender documentation. However, the Commission will seek assurances from the Turkish authorities that they exercise restraint similar to that exercised by Community contracting entities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Inquiry into tachograph use

Is the Commission aware of a study carried out by Britain's Cambridge University showing that the new digital tachograph, specified as compulsory for new road-haulage vehicles in the European Union as at 1 July 2000, is susceptible to fraud?

Is it true, as reported in the study, that cards containing permitted itineraries are readily available on the black market that can easily be substituted for cards on which infringements have been recorded?

If so, what action is the Commission prepared to take to ensure that itineraries cannot be faked?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

The study mentioned by the Honourable Member was made on the basis of the Council's political agreement of 17 June 1997. This laid down a general framework for a digital tachograph. At that stage technical specifications for the digital tachograph and the driver cards had not been defined in detail. This is particularly true for the security aspects. Any report based on that text can therefore only lead to the conclusion that the technical requirements were incomplete.

The study does have its merits, but more as a useful checklist for the current work on defining technical specifications than as a valid judgement on a system that is still in the process of being finalised.

In the meantime, work has been progressing with industry and with software experts to define the final, detailed technical specifications in order to ensure that it will be harder to break the electronic security of the recording equipment and driver cards, and also to ensure that attempts to tamper with the system will be easier to detect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/98

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Abolition of border controls and derogations

How should Article 14 and Article 62 be construed in relation to each other and how does the Schengen Agreement's timetable for abolishing border controls take effect in relation to Articles 14 and 62?

What is the difference between the Danish derogation and the UK and Irish derogation from Article 14?

Does Denmark also have derogations from the provision concerning the abolition of border controls?

Does the derogation from Article 14 also apply to the Kingdom of Denmark?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Article 7a of the EC Treaty (which will become Article 14 when the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force) was intended to complete the single market, including the abolition of controls on the free movement of persons, whatever their nationality, at internal borders not later than 31 December 1992. Since this objective cannot be realised on the basis of the current EC Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty will make certain major amendments to the EC Treaty in this connection. These include giving a Community character to several areas falling under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the improvement of the mechanisms laid down in Title VI, the protocol integrating the Schengen provisions into the legal framework of the European Union and the protocols on the specific positions of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark.

New Articles 61 and 62 of the EC Treaty confirm the objective of abolishing controls on persons at internal borders, setting out an exhaustive list of the necessary accompanying measures and laying down a new timetable. The Council will have to adopt the relevant measures within five years of the Amsterdam Treaty coming into force.

The protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the EC Treaty to the United Kingdom and Ireland will enable all Member States to maintain controls on persons moving between those two countries, on the one hand, and the other Member States, on the other. The protocol concerning Denmark contains no such provisions.

Although Denmark, according to that protocol, will not participate in the work to be carried out under new Title IV of the EC Treaty, to which Articles 61 and 62 belong, it has to decide, not later than six months after the Council adopts a decision regarding a proposal or initiative intended to extend the Schengen arrangements by virtue of Title IV, whether to transpose any such decision or initiative into national law. Whatever position Denmark adopts regarding new Title IV, it will still be required to achieve the objective of abolishing internal border controls on persons via its participation in the Schengen arrangements, which will be incorporated into the legal framework of the Union.

The date on which Denmark will implement the Schengen arrangements will be decided by the Council in accordance with Article 2(2) of the protocol incorporating the Schengen arrangements into the legal framework of the Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1501/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: The information society and social and economic cohesion

In her appearance before Parliament's Committee on Regional Policy on 23 January 1997 in connection with the presentation of the Commission Communication on cohesion and the information society (COM(97) 7 final of 22 January 1997), Mrs Mathies, Commissioner, mentioned that budget resources under Article 6 of the ESF had been made available to a certain number of regions with a view to the drawing up of a strategy and an action programme for transition to the information society.

Could the Commission provide information regarding all the projects relating to the information society which have so far been co-financed by the Commission under Article 6 of the ESF and also those which will be co-financed between now and the end of the current planning period, specifying the regions concerned, the total cost of implementation and the extent of Community co-financing?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

At the present time, Article 6 of the European social fund (ESF) Regulation(1) supports pilot projects in the field of the information society through the regional information society initiative (RISI). Under this scheme ESF finances a total of ten projects. Eight projects are supported in the field of RISI 1 (regional strategy and action plans). The areas concerned are Bremen-Germany, Attika-Greece, Midi-Pyrénées-France, South West Region-Ireland, North Karelia-Finland, Murcia-Spain, Blekinge-Sweden, Wales-United Kingdom. Each project receives a total of up to 250 000 ECU co-financing at a rate of 50 % for producing a strategy and action plan on the information society. Two projects are supported in the field of RISI 2 (regional information society applications). These are multi regional projects which aim to carry out feasibility studies before testing practical applications in the regions concerned. The two projects are in the domain of cross-border telework (Telecentres) and libraries as information and training centres (ISTAR). The former is receiving co-financing of 2,4 MECU at a rate of 50 %, and the latter is supported at the same rate to a total of 1,1 MECU.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1896/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Legal aid in the internal market

In Denmark, members of the public can in some cases receive legal aid in respect of proceedings in which they become involved. Free legal aid may be granted in special circumstances, and there are also a number of insurance schemes which may provide financial assistance towards contesting lawsuits. However, such arrangements do not apply if, for instance, a person is involved in a civil action outside the Member State of which he or she is a citizen. Will the Commission therefore state:

1. Whether it is correct to say that, basically, private individuals in the EU have access to legal aid in respect of proceedings only in the Member State of which they are citizens and, even then, only if special arrangements exist in that Member State for providing such aid?

2. Whether it agrees that this situation is an obstacle to free movement within the internal market?

3. Whether it is able to take any steps to remedy this situation, and whether such steps have been taken?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Legal aid in proceedings before national courts is governed by the laws of the Member States. However access to justice is a corollary to the freedoms of the EC Treaty and Article 6 of the EC Treaty prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality. As a consequence, Union citizens must, in the exercise of their rights under the Treaty, have access to justice including access to possible legal aid, without discrimination on the basis of their nationality.

Divergences in legal aid offered by various Member States cannot be regarded as discrimination in the meaning of Article 6 as long as legal aid is offered according to objective criteria and without regard to nationality.

As guardian of the Treaty the Commission may intervene if there are issues of discrimination prohibited under Article 6 or other infringements of Community law. However, the Commission is not aware that any Member State would discriminate against nationals of other Member States as regards access to legal aid.