ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 January 1999)

Subject: Delay in funding of programme

The Commission has adopted a programme (code: 96/T/18) entitled "Management of insect pests and viruses of tobacco using ecologically compatible technologies". This programme was drawn up by Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) and was launched in March 1997. Although two out of a total of five phases have already been completed, and substantive spending has been made, EU funding for the programme has so far been non-existent. As a result neither those employed on the project nor the suppliers of laboratory equipment which has been purchased and installed and has been operating since last March have been paid.

Will the Commission say:

1. Why has funding for the programme been delayed?

2. What measures will be taken to ensure that the sums due are paid forthwith?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 1999)

Project 96/T/18 "Management of insect pests and viruses of tobacco using ecologically compatible technologies" is one of a number of tobacco research projects. The delay in payments for these projects is due to a lack of staff in the departments concerned. The Commission is trying to find a solution to this problem so that payments can be made as quickly as possible and will keep the Honourable Member informed of progress made.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1001/99 by Ian WHITE Revision of Council's Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993



Official Journal C 370 , 21/12/1999 P. 0151



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/99 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (20 April 1999) Subject: Revision of Council's Regulation (EEC) 95/93 of 18 January 1993 Would the Commission advise how regional airports, currently experiencing difficulties in obtaining viable slots at major centres/hubs (e.g. Frankfurt), will benefit from the promised revision of Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93(1) of 18 January 1993, giving specific details? (1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
national rules concerning single vehicle type- approval continue to be applied in the Member States
although it is possible that certain systems, components and separate technical units for caravans may havebeen approved under Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the lawsof the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.
The Commission is hopeful that completion of the system of EC vehicle type-approval for vehicles of this
type will be agreed within the medium-term.
(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.
(2000/C 27 E/125) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1507/99
by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: French governments ban on freight traffic in France on 11 August 1999 in connection with the
solar eclipse
On 27 July 1999 it was reported on the news that the French government is seeking to impose a ban on
(freight) traffic in France on 11 August in connection with the solar eclipse. The government says this isfor safety reasons.
1. Is the Commission aware of Frances intentions and, if so, is it of the opinion that this ban is
justified?
2. Does the Commission agree that this ban will paralyse international business and freight traffic,
thereby causing unnecessary financial damage, and that this is unacceptable?
3. Does the Commission agree that the ban is excessive given that lorries normally drive at night in
France and that no additional safety measures are taken?
4. Does the Commission agree that not only France but also the whole of international trade will be
affected by this ban and that France cannot therefore simply impose it?
5. What action does the Commission intend to take before 11 August to prevent the ban entering into
fore?
Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission
(10 September 1999)
In view of the fact that this question was obviously related to a specific time and event during the
Parliamentary recess the Commission wrote to the Honourable Member on 6 August responding to herenquiries. In that letter the Commission said that it was aware of the French governments intention toimpose a ban on freight traffic on 11 August 1999 because of the solar eclipse and was of the opinionthat such a ban would be justified if it was imposed for road safety reasons and if the measure is in
proportion to the aims pursued, even though it could affect international traffic. In the view of the
Commission the safety risk did not relate to darkness caused by the solar eclipse in France but rather tothe expected massive movements of people who wanted to watch the eclipse from certain locations.
In this particular case, the Commission took the view that proportionality meant that the ban should be
restricted in time (i.e. not the entire day), should be restricted in space (i.e. probably not the entire French
territory) and should distinguish between categories of roads (i.e. secondary roads as opposed to motor-ways). The Commission wrote to the French authorities accordingly, but has not yet received a response.29.1.2000 EN C 27 E/101 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0927/99

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Regulation of amateur radio operators in Europe

DG XIII of the European Commission is preparing for publication of the Green Paper on European policy on the use of the radio frequency spectrum. Amateur radio operators are not even mentioned, which can only mean that the Commission currently has no plans to regulate the sector.

This activity is regulated by the international conventions and agreements of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union). All Member States have signed them and apply them.

There are currently 300 000 amateur radio operators with an official licence in the European Union. They operate both on HF bands and on VHF and UHF, and as a group have a high level of training and technical knowledge. They carry out research and contribute to technological development in a wide range of areas, including propagation studies, new transmission systems and satellite communications. The Commission's failure to make any mention of the amateur radio sector in the green paper's preparatory documents should therefore be rectified.

What are the views of the Commissioner responsible for this area, and what action does he intend to take to correct this omission?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1999)

The Commission published on 15 December 1999 a green paper on radio spectrum policy(1) and thereby launched a consultation period calling on all interested parties to submit their views before 15 April 1999 on the questions and issues it raised. The Commission has also organised three public hearings (24 February 1999 for individual entities or companies; 17 March 1999 for interest groups or associations; 30 March 1999 for administrations). The International amateur radio union (IARU) participated in one of the meetings and had, and continues to have, the opportunity to put forward opinions.

Radio-amateurs as well as their national or European interest groups are welcome to submit in writing any view deemed relevant. All comments will be published on the web site http://www.ispo.cec.be/spectrumgp.

The green paper addresses spectrum policy related issues from a generic point of view pertinent to all sectors or applications, including the usage made by radio-amateurs which falls under the category of Research and development (R& D) discussed in the green paper. The Commission welcomes any comments which representative radio-amateur interest groups may wish to put forward on policy issues in relation with spectrum policy and will study proposals carefully in the context of all responses received.

(1) COM(98) 596 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0602/99

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Signing of agreements under Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty

Will the Commission explain why it signed in December an agreement with Canada on nuclear cooperation under Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty, without either informing or consulting the European Parliament, contrary to the Institutional Agreement made in an exchange of letters between Parliament and Commission on such significant Euratom agreements?

Will the Commission now apprise Parliament of all nuclear negotiations in hand or foreseen, including those with the IAEA and other such bodies? Will the Commission in future consult Parliament in advance on all of these and other such agreements, and if not would it now justify any exceptions?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1999)

The Commission gave an initial reaction to the matters raised by the Honourable Member at the meeting of the Parliament's Foreign affairs security and defence policy committee on 23 February 1999.

The Commission is currently in contact with the Parliament to respond to and resolve the various matters recently raised concerning the implementation of the exchange of letters between the Presidents of the Commission and the Parliament of July 1998 relating to the conclusion of Euratom Agreements (based on Article 101.2).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0672/99

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

(26 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

Regions whose per capita income is less than 75 % of the average Community per capita income are described as "Objective 1 regions" and they receive significant amounts of Community aid.

To determine whether or not this threshold has been exceeded, the draft Council Regulation COM(98) 131 final(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds states that the figures corresponding to the last three years for which Eurostat has data available will be used.

At the moment the only figures available are those for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 financial years.

What are the figures for those years for Navarra?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.
Will the Commission say whether it has any further information concerning the extent of substandard
workmanship in all the projects funded in Greece by the 2nd CSF? Does that information show that theproportion of substandard work has fallen and that Greece has taken the necessary measures to remedy it?If not, will the Commission say what steps it will take to ensure that this tremendously important issue isnow dealt with seriously and that those responsible are held to account?
(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 42.
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(11 November 1999)
The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
(2000/C 27 E/219) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/99
by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission
(9 November 1999)
Subject: Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals
What is the remit of the Commissions Task Force on Vitamins and Minerals? Who are its members?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(19 November 1999)
The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-1552/
1999 and E-1593/1999 by Mr Graham Watson and others (1).
(1) See page 128.
(2000/C 27 E/220) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2017/99
by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 October 1999)
Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects
On 13 October 1998, in reply to my question No E-2176/98 (1), the then Commissioner, Mrs Wulf-
Mathies, said that the first ESPEL quarterly report had found that quality problems did exist in variousprojects and that ESPEL would proceed to carry out systematic and in-depth checks on 2nd CSF projects.
In the light of the large number of accidents on Greek motorways caused by substandard work and
inadequate checking systems, will the Commission say what the results of ESPELs checks are to date? In
which specific projects have substandard work or shortcomings been identified? Have those been rectifiedby the contractors and at whose expense? What financial, disciplinary, penal or other administrativeconsequences (e.g. blacklisting) will be imposed on those responsible for the failings and substandardwork?
(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51 and OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.C 27 E/176 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0457/99

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(5 March 1999)

Subject: Democratic clause in agreements with third countries

Given that respect for human rights is one of the founding principles underpinning the European Union and requires practical expression not only within the EU but also in third countries, and that the inclusion of the "democratic clause" in Union agreements with third countries means that concrete action can be taken, including the suspension of financial aid to countries which do not respect human rights, does the Commission believe that the application of this clause under the various agreements has helped improve respect for human rights worldwide?

In which specific cases has the Commission been forced to suspend agreements under the provisions of the democratic clause?

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

(13 April 1999)

The Council established in May 1995 that all agreements with non-Community countries should routinely include (i) a clause making adherence to democratic principles and human rights an essential element of those agreements, and (ii) a "non-execution" clause. The Commission would like to point out that the motive for this was to promote a common commitment to respecting and promoting universal values, rather than to create a relationship governed by conditions.

The Commission considers it very difficult at this point to gauge the effect of such clauses on the human rights situation in the countries in question. The arrangements approved by the Council favour dialogue over countermeasures as a means of solving all but the most urgent problems. Suspending cooperation remains a last resort.

The range of measures available for dealing with serious and persistent violations of human rights or interruption of the democratic process is wide enough to allow reactions to be matched to the severity of the case. Although measures such as representations (démarches), specific action and decisions to change the content of cooperation programmes have been used in many instances, no cooperation agreement has actually been suspended.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0008/99

by Armelle Guinebertière (UPE) to the Commission

(19 January 1999)

Subject: Export refund system and amendment of the Community Regulation

The flow of agri-foodstuff exports, a vital concern for the EU's regions and Member States, is today under threat from the changes in the rules governing the export refund system. For instance, 60 % of the business generated by France's leading industrial sector is affected by the refunds, a system which has been endorsed by the World Trade Organisation.

Export-oriented management of the internal market is now being called into question because the EU's financial interests are taking precedence over its main industrial sector.

That being the case, will the Commission reconsider its proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) 3665/87(1) and, when negotiating and administering preferential agreements, pay heed to the consequences for the export trade?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 1999)

The risk of economic operations being undertaken for speculative purposes exists whenever the cost of reimporting products benefiting from export refunds (cost of transport and any processing in the non-member country plus the customs duties to be paid on import) is lower than the amount of the refund granted.

To prevent Community funds from being allocated for transactions whose aim is not contemplated by the system of export refunds, the Commission took steps, by means of Commission Regulation (EC) 313/97 of 20 February 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the system of export refunds on agricultural products(2), to avoid deflections of trade. These measures, which have applied since 1 March 1997, have not affected the flow of agricultural exports. The loss of some export markets in 1998 was due mainly to the international economic and financial crisis (Russia and South-East Asia).

The draft reformulation of Regulation (EEC) 3665/87, as regards the preferential agreements, has taken over the wording used in Regulation (EC) 313/97.

(1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 51, 21.2.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0301/99

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

(17 February 1999)

Subject: Bringing the additional provisions of the French Law 97-I051 of 18 November on sea fishing guidelines and marine crops into line with Community law

In its reply to my previous Written Question E-4112/97(1), the Commission claimed that it would ensure that the additional provisions of French Law 97-I051 adopted by the French authorities would be in keeping with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

Is the Commission aware of the additional provisions of this French law, not published in the French Republic's Official Journal, but forwarded to Franco-Spanish undertakings?

In particular, is the Commission aware of the circular dated 26 October 1998 issued by the "Direction Intedepartementale des Affaires Maritimes pour les Landes et les Pyrenées-Atlantiques" of the French Ministry of Equipment, Transport and Accommodation, and the specimen form to be filled out by the said undertakings pursuant to the said circular?

If the Commission is not aware of these documents, does it intend to request them as part of its effort to oversee the measures implementing the legislation concerned, and will it, in any case, state whether it believes these additional provisions, and in particular what the circular aforesaid lays down regarding "stable establishment", are in conformity with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 1999)

Following the Honourable Member's question the Commission has asked the French national authorities to transmit the provisions in question.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 125.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/99

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 April 1999)

Subject: Workplace Directive

Will the Commission list the countries which have complied with the fire-safety requirements of the Workplace Directive (89/654/EEC)(1), indicate what checks and inspections it is implementing to ensure compliance with the fire-safety requirements of the Directive and which countries are facing infringement proceedings for failure to ensure compliance and the nature of those proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 1999)

All Member States have informed the Commission of their national implementing measures transposing Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC(2)).

It is the task of the Member States to ensure adequate checking and monitoring of the national provisions transposing the Directive. Consequently, all matters relating to the implementation of those provisions come under the jurisdiction of the national authorities, which must organise and carry out the inspections and checks needed to ensure proper application of the measures.

The Commission has assessed the conformity of the national implementing measures transposing Directive 89/654/EEC and has taken appropriate action where necessary. For example, it has requested additional information from Member States where the fire-safety requirements did not seem to have been fully or correctly transposed.

After studying the replies, it is possible that the Commission might initiate infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.
The Commission would point out however, that ratification of CITES by Ireland will not in itself lead to
the accession to CITES by the Community. The latter depends on the ratification of an amendment to thetext of the Convention by certain other CITES parties. The Commission is actively discussing this questionwith the CITES parties concerned.
On a positive note, the Commission understands that draft legislation recently tabled in the Irish
Parliament (aimed at amending Irelands 1976 Wildlife Act) will operate as an instrument of ratification.This legislation is expected to be adopted in the coming months, and the Commission is hopeful that theHonourable Members concerns will thereby be satisfactorily addressed.
(1) Debates of the Parliament (February 1999).
(2) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
(2000/C 27 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1407/99
by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Single person travel supplement
Can the Commission indicate whether the supplements applied to single peoples travelling costs is
contrary to Community law?
Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission
(19 October 1999)
There is no specific Community legislation on the supplements applied to single travellers. In June 1990,
the Council adopted the Directive 90/314/EEC (1) on package travel, package holidays and package tours,
the purpose of which is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the MemberStates relating to packages sold or offered for sale in the territory of the Community. The directive isdesigned to protect consumers who contract package travel in the Community.
Article 2.4 of the Directive defines the consumer as the person who takes or agrees to take the package
(the principal contractor), or any person on whose behalf the principal contractor agrees to purchase thepackage (the other beneficiaries) or any person to whom the principal contractor or any of the otherbeneficiaries transfers the package (the transferee). Therefore the Community text does not make anydistinction between travellers, single or not, and its provisions apply to all of them.
Generally, market mechanisms impose a higher price for single travellers on the basis that they would
cause higher accommodation costs.
(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(2000/C 27 E/061) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1408/99
by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Job-sharing facilities
As you are no doubt aware, job-sharing in the public sector is allowed and, where possible, must be
granted to someone making an application for it. However, no such obligation currently exists in theprivate sector.
Could the Commission indicate whether there are any EU directives being discussed or planned with a
view to introducing obligatory job-sharing facilities in the private sector?C 27 E/52 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities