ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: PHARE

I understand that in 1996 a bank crisis in Bulgaria accompanied by a stop on payments resulted in the loss of ECU 9,1 million from the PHARE programme.

Has it been possible to recover any of this money since, and if so, how much?

What amount is likely to be irrecoverable?

Who selects the EU's banking contacts, and on what criteria?

Is the Commission aware of other cases in which Community appropriations have been lost as the result of the insolvency of banks and other credit institutions, and if so what amounts were involved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

The funds blocked in 1996 amounted to 9 396 867 and DM 14 750 The amounts recovered were 9 385 673,55 and DM 15 367,07.

The criteria to open bank accounts in Bulgaria changed in March 1996. After an evaluation of the banking situation it was decided that the PHARE funds should be held in well-capitalised banks having a strong back up from their shareholders. The banks that, in the Commission's opinion, fulfilled these requirements were the ING Bulgaria, the Bulbank, the Raiffeissen and the Dresdner bank. These are the banks with which the Commission has operated since then.

From 1998 on the Commission redefined the criteria used in order to select the banks where the PHARE funds can be held. In this context, the PHARE funds related to programmes approved in 1998 and onwards must be held at the central bank or in a government guaranteed bank account.

The Commission has no knowledge of further cases of a banking crisis affecting Commission funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1864/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Long distance truck drivers

Is the Commission aware of reports that certain haulage firms are now employing significant numbers of drivers from outside the European Union, paying them rates below the minimum wage and forcing them to drive more than the permitted hours?

What steps will be taken by the Commission to urge governments of Member States to crack down on such practices where they occur?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community that are employed often illegally by haulage firms in the Community. The Commission is very concerned about the distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community and considers this issue to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry.

For this reason the Commission has already written to the Member States in order to raise awareness of the problem and to gauge Member States' perception of how widespread the problem is.

As a first step towards exploring possible ways to address this issue, the Commission has asked the Member States to establish an overview of the diverse social, labour and transport rules applied by them in this area. Once the Commission has established an overview of the relevant rules and details determining current practice, further action will be considered.

A key factor which must be acknowledged is that Member States are responsible to ensure the effectiveness of enforcement arrangements within their territory. Clearly, breaches of minimum wage arrangements or even of permitted driving hours and rest periods are unacceptable. That this should occur on an almost systematic basis in some Member States is very disturbing. The Commission is also currently drawing up a report on the uniform and effective enforcement of the Community rules on driving times and rest periods based on submissions made by Member States which may result in legislative proposals in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/99

by SIR Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 1999)

Subject: Air Traffic Control

What have been the percentage increases over the last five years of Air Traffic Control delays in European airspace and what is the predicted expectation for 2000/2002?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/99, E-2107/99, E-2108/99, E-2109/99, E-2110/99, E-2111/99, E-2112/99, E-2113/99, E-2114/99, E-2115/99, E-2116/99 and E-2117/99 given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission has issued a communication(1) on the current situation of air traffic delays and on new initiatives to be taken to provide the Community with the air traffic management (ATM) system it needs to ensure the proper functioning of its internal market. Most questions raised by the Honourable Member are answered in this document which has been adopted on 1 December 1999 and communicated to the Council and the Parliament.

When preparing this communication the Commission worked in close cooperation with interested parties, in particular airspace users, airports, workers, and air traffic services providers, through their representative organisations. It also consulted the civil aviation authorities of all Member States on the various actions to take to rectify the situation.

Reduction of air traffic delays is primarily a responsibility of Member States and their co-ordinating body, Eurocontrol. In this context operational procedures and technical improvements are for specialists to define and implement. The role of the Community is essentially to create the organisational framework at national and European level so as to ensure that such solutions are universally agreed and implemented in a co-ordinated and consistent manner. This is why the Community decided in 1998 to join Eurocontrol so as to exercise political control on this organisation. Negotiations to that end are nearly completed, but ratification procedures may take several years. The Commission therefore will ask early implementation of Community membership.

The ATM 2000 strategy is a document produced by Eurocontrol and it is the responsibility of that organisation to adopt and implement the proposals contained in the strategy. The Commission has contributed to the production of this document along with aviation users, Member States, and international organisations. The Commission supports the general objectives and strategic principles as indicated in the strategy, but wonders whether more work is required in order to develop a mature, reliable and robust plan which addresses the technological developments necessary to meet the estimated doubling of traffic by 2015.

(1) COM(1999) 614.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Combating violence against women

As part of the European public awareness campaign focusing on violence against women, a call for the submission of proposals was issued with a view to providing technical and/or financial support for information and communication projects at European level.

How many projects have been selected? What are the amounts involved?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2000)

As part of the public awareness campaign focusing on violence against women, a call for proposals in two tranches was published in the Official Journal. The first tranche was published on 7 April 1999, with a deadline of 21 May 1999 for submission of projects, and the second on 10 August 1999 with a deadline of 21 September 1999.

The Commission will forward directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a detailed list of the projects which have been approved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1978/99

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Draft Commission communication on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to state aid in the form of loan guarantees

The draft communication forwarded to the Member States in January 1999 has created widespread uncertainty in the credit sector. Publication of this communication has substantially undermined the sector's confidence in a guarantee instrument with legal certainty. It would result in savings banks and other banks granting credits being unable to take up such credit guarantees, with the result that retroactively they would have to assume without any prior warning the insolvency risk of businesses in receipt of loans.

1. Does the Commission really intend to issue this communication?

2. In what way will the legitimate expectations of credit institutions be guaranteed?

3. What action will the Commission take to counter the considerable uncertainty experienced by actors on the financial market

4. Is the Commission aware that in critical instances the credit institutions would dispense with a state guarantee for their loans, with the result that the state would have to directly finance loans eligible for aid and hence the fiscally beneficial effect of simply proving a loan guarantee would no longer apply?

5. Given the confusing plethora of communications, guidelines and ad hoc decisions concerning subsidies, does the Commission intend to create greater transparency and legal certainty by publishing a comprehensive and systematic overview of the law on European subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

1. On 24 November 1999 the Commission adopted the notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 (formerly Articles 92 and 93) of the EC Treaty to state aid in the form of guarantees.

2. The communication should not undermine the confidence of credit institutions, It is intended solely to clarify the rules applicable to aid in the form of guarantees.

3. The precise objective of the communication is to increase transparency and, in so doing, help mitigate the uncertainty felt by actors on the financial markets.

4. The Commission is not seeking to prohibit guarantees but simply to ensure their conformity with the aid rules.

5. The notice is designed to achieve greater transparency of rules hitherto contained in various texts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/99

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: EU coordinator Hombach

For weeks, the EU's international coordinator for reconstruction of the Balkans, Bodo Hombach, has been publicly suspected of involvement in bribery cases with considerable ramifications (relating to his private house in Mülheim and his luxury home in Canada). On 27 August 1999, in response to these serious allegations, he decided of his own volition to resign from his party posts.

In view of this situation, which still remains very unclear, as well as the utterly incomprehensible plan to locate his office in Brussels rather than in the immediate vicinity of the region to which his duties pertain, which will hardly be conducive to efficiency, the following question is surely inescapable: does the Council intend to suggest to Mr Hombach that he should resign from his highly responsible post as EU representative for the democratic and economic reconstruction of the Balkan region?

Under the circumstances, it would moreover be desirable, in the interests of transparency, to announce publicly what remuneration was promised to Mr Hombach when he took up the post. Will the Council do so?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1693/99, E-1694/99 and E-1776/99

(14 February 2000)

The Council is aware of the allegations made in the German press on the activities undertaken by Mr Hombach prior to his appointment as EU Special Representative and Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact.

In light of the clarifications given by Mr Hombach to the Presidency on the questions concerning him and in the absence of any conviction by a court of law, the Presidency and the Council continue to support him in performing the role entrusted to him.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2776/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Funding of a training school for tourist couriers

There is no school in Greece for training couriers for the tourist industry and the knowledge which those currently working as couriers possess is gained from their experience and in-house courses.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Will it say whether it could provide joint funding to set up a post-secondary school to train couriers for the tourist industry?

2. For which in-house courses for training couriers in Greece did the Union provide funding from 1996 to 1999 and what were the sums involved?

3. How many people received training on those courses?

4. In view of the allegations that some of those who attended these courses were subsequently unable to work as couriers because it is prohibited to do so by their current profession, e.g. civil servants, can the Commission confirm that such people did not take part in the courses run between 1996 and 1999?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1977/99

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Regional planning and building projects in the Sintra-Cascais natural park in Portugal

Is the Commission aware that efforts are being made to build on parts of the Sintra-Cascais natural park, e.g. in the Cabo Raso and Abano areas, which would cause lasting damage to the park? Is the Commission prepared to bring pressure to bear on the competent bodies in Portugal to uphold Community efforts at nature conservation and to protect the Natura 2000 network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 1999)

The Commission has taken note of the case set out by the Honourable Member, and will be registering it. The Sintra-Cascais natural park does coincide in part with the site of Community importance (SCI) of the same name which Portugal put forward for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1).

The Commission will therefore make sure that the Portuguese authorities comply with Community law on nature protection. To that end, a letter will be sent to them drawing their attention to the case in question and reminding them of their obligations under Community law, in particular those imposed by Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, which stipulates that any project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site but likely to have a significant effect thereon must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/99

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: Maritime accident investigations

In the light of the recent collision in the Channel, and with a view to the improved safety of passengers at sea, will the Commission ensure that independent accident investigation arrangements are introduced for all maritime operations in the EU, similar to the arrangements for air accident investigation in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

A first Commission initiative aimed at introducing independent accident investigation arrangements has resulted in the adoption of Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed passenger craft services(1). This Directive will provide any substantially interested Member State the legal right to participate, to co-operate in, or where provided under the Internation maritime organization (IMO) code for the investigation of marine casualties(2), to conduct any marine casualty or incident investigation involving a ro-ro ferry or high-speed passenger craft.

The Commission acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum of its proposal for this Directive(3) that a justified and legitimate involvement of Member States in marine casualty investigations should not be limited to ro-ro ferries and high speed passenger craft only. The Commission considered the proposal as a first step towards a more general application of the IMO code for the investigation of marine casualties and announced that it would consider, in the light of the expertise gained with the application of this Directive, how and which further steps would be necessary at Community level to ensure an effective implementation of the IMO code in all maritime accidents and incidents occurring within waters falling under the Community's concern.

This Commission intention has been confirmed in the Commission communication on the common transport policy sustainable mobility: perspectives for the future, which mentions a proposal on accident investigation and statistics as one of the main possible tasks for its action programme 2000-2004(4).

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(2) IMO Assembly Resolution A.849(20) adopted on 27 November 1997.

(3) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(4) COM(98) 716 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2493/99

by Dominique Souchet (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Export refunds for processed food products

Export refunds are essential for ensuring that some EU food sectors are able to continue exporting European processed agricultural products on international markets. They constitute a logical and legitimate form of compensation for the difference in raw material prices in the EU compared with international prices, and are an essential component of the principle of Community preference.

The Commission proposal aimed at reducing the refund budget by 4,5 % for products not included in Annex I had just been submitted at the time of the last meeting of the management committee. The proposal failed to obtain a qualified majority with 53 votes against, 28 abstentions and no votes in favour.

1. In view of this, does the Commission intend to adopt the proposal?

2. In the run-up to the WTO negotiations due to begin shortly in Seattle, does the Commission not consider that it is sending out a political signal that could undermine the maintenance of the principle of Community preference, which is a fundamental part of the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the fixing of export refunds for products not covered by Annex I (ex Annex II) to the EC Treaty, which have been reduced by a flat-rate of 4,5 % as of 1 November 1999. This reduction is intended to ensure that spending on refunds for the sector not covered by Annex I remains within the appropriations set by the budgetary authority.

This measure does not undermine the principle of Community preference but is simply intended to ensure that, when refund rates are fixed, both the constraints that maintain substantial differences between agricultural product prices within the Community and worldwide and the discipline imposed on the Community budget and, in particular, on its agricultural component are taken into account.

Furthermore, the Commission has presented a communication(1) to the Council proposing certain specific measures, such as economy measures and the creation of an additional facility authorising easier access to inward processing. This will enable the Community processing industry to remain competitive in external markets.

(1) COM(99) 673 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/99

by Gorka Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Irregularities in the construction of the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona high speed train link

Two senior members of staff of the Railway Investment Management Body (GIF) which comes under the Spanish Government's Ministry of Public Works. Have recently been dismissed after giving contracts worth 5 billion pesetas to companies with which they have shareholding links for construction work on the Madrid-Barcelona-Zaragoza high-speed train link.

Given that the EU's Cohesion Fund is co-funding this construction work is the Commission aware of these irregularities and if so, does it believe that they should be investigated by the Community authorities?

Does the Commission believe that these facts could delay the high-speed train link or endanger its EU co-funding? Has the Commission asked the Spanish Government for clarification, and if so, will it do so?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission is aware of the resignation of two members of the staff of the GIF (the body managing railway infrastructure) and of the opening of an administrative inquiry.

This inquiry, conducted by the Spanish Ministry of Transport (Fomento), was intended to establish whether there was a link between these members of staff and the two companies awarded contracts for construction work on the high-speed railway line from Madrid to Barcelona and the French border and whether those companies received preferential treatment. The Minister responsible recently presented the results of the inquiry to the Spanish Parliament.

The contracts in question are not receiving part-financing from the Cohesion Fund but form part of two groups of projects for which the Spanish authorities have applied for part-financing. This application is currently being considered.

The Commission is awaiting the results of the inquiry carried out by the Spanish authorities before deciding what measures to take.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/99

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2000)

Subject: Authors of Corpus Juris

Corpus Juris was a Green Paper which did not, ostensibly, reflect the official view of the Commission.

Do any of the document's authors hold official positions in the European Communities?

Do any have an influence on policy development?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Corpus juris(1) is neither a green paper nor indeed a Commission document. However, it was drawn up at Parliament's request under the aegis of the Commission. The follow-up report on the Corpus Juris of September 1999 has been informally transmitted to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control(2).

Drawing up the Corpus juris was entrusted to a committee of eight independent experts, none of whom were performing official duties within the Communities at the time.

On the basis of the ideas formulated in the Corpus juris and the follow-up report, the Commission intends, as does Parliament itself, to push forward the institutions' deliberations on the institutional arrangements which might be proposed, including to the Intergovernmental Conference.

(1) Corpus Juris introducing penal provisions for the purpose of the financial interests of the European Union (Ed. Economica 1997).

(2) Nécessité, légitimité et faisabilité de Corpus juris.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/99

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Statements by the Spanish government on the unresolved issue of state aid to the electricity sector

The Spanish government, and in particular the Minister for Industry and government spokesman, Josep Piqué, have stated on numerous occasions that the Commission is to adopt a decision on state aids to the Spanish electricity sector in respect of the costs of transition to competition by the end of 1999.

Can the Commission confirm the Spanish government's assertions?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2000)

In discussions between the Spanish Minister and the Member of the Commission responsible for competition policy the intention was indeed to reach a decision on this case before the end of 1999. However, the search for an independent consultant and the complexity of the case made it impossible to meet this target. The Commission still hopes to be able to adopt a decision shortly.