ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Twenty-sixth report on competition policy

With regard to the Twenty-sixth report on competition policy (1996) (SEC(97) 628 final, CES 1381/97), can the Commission ensure that, when assessing whether a dominant position exists within the context of the EU, reference is not made solely to the internal market alone when the reference market is international?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

In any assessment of a dominant position and of its potential market effects, reference is made to a relevant market, such market being defined in terms of criteria relating to the product or service concerned (product market) or in terms of geographic criteria (geographic market). In 1997 the Commission also published a notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law(1) that explains how it identifies the relevant market, this concept thus being a legal tool for carrying out market analyses and applying competition law.

Accordingly, in cases where the relevant market is a global market, the assessment as to whether a dominant position exists will be conducted at that level. This is what happened, for example, in the Boeing/MacDonnell Douglas case. Where, however, the market is less open and the analytical criteria indicate that the market remains European, which is more often the case than not, the Commission's analysis will be confined to that market.

(1) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1656/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Delays in implementing the URBAN programme in Rome

Does the Commission intend to monitor the progress made by Rome City Council in implementing the URBAN programme?

Is the Commission aware of any difficulties in implementing the programme, that could lead to a reduction in funding, as reported by the Italian press ("Il Giornale", 10 May 1998)?

When does the Commission plan to inform the European Parliament of the state of progress of URBAN in Rome?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1998)

Through the monitoring committee specifically created for the purpose, the Commission monitors closely the implementation of the URBAN programme by the Italian authorities concerned, including the subprogramme in Rome undertaken by Rome city council.

The Commission is aware of general difficulties in the start-up phase of the programme encountered by most of the authorities involved. These difficulties are being gradually overcome and, expenditure under the programme is now picking up, albeit slowly.

The programme provides for the reprogramming between cities of resources which cannot be used by one authority within the deadlines but could be used by another authority.

The Commission intends to inform the Parliament about the implementation of Community initiatives in a special report in autumn 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/98

by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Figures for conscientious objectors and those performing community service in the EU Member States and the applicant countries

On 16 July 1997 the Commission announced the first steps towards EU enlargement in "Agenda 2000". "Agenda 2000" also contains opinions on the applications of Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Slovenia. On 4 December 1997, Parliament adopted a report on "Agenda 2000" in which it declared: "the European Union open to all European democracies that fulfill the criteria for membership" and stressed "the importance it attaches to progress in particular in the following areas: [..] the ratification and implementation of legal human rights standards, the legal accountability of police, military and secret services, [...] the acceptance of the principle of conscientious objection to military service."

Can the Commission give figures for the individual EU Member States and applicant countries, for the period 1990 to the present, providing an overview of the annual number of:

- conscientious objectors to military service,

- recognised conscientious objectors to military service and

- those who performed alternative community service?

Answer given by Mrde Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

The Commission does not have the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1597/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Taiwan spirits of taxation and the Scotch whisky industry



Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0051



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (25 May 1998) Subject: Taiwan spirits of taxation and the Scotch whisky industry Has the Commission fully assessed the potential impact that the interim tax offer for spirits with Taiwan could have on the Scotch whisky industry, given that Taiwan is the industry's ninth most important export market?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1232/98

by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 1998)

Subject: Budgetary implementation in Catalonia in 1996 and 1997

Will the Commission give details of the implementation of commitment and payment appropriations from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the Community Initiatives in Catalonia for the financial years 1996 and 1997?

Supplementary answer

given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 1998)

The commitments and payments carried out by the Structural Funds for the interventions of national initiative in Catalonia during the years 1996 and 1997 are as follows:

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

It is useful to stress that for the interventions of Community initiative having a national overall cover, the commitments and payments are carried out for the intervention and data are not, consequently, available at the regional level. The same is true for the single programming document "Objective 5a - fishes".

With regard to the cohesion Fund, during these two years, the Commission part-financed in Catalonia projects in the field of the environment and of transport for a total amount of ECU 564,42 million. Vis-a-vis these investments, an sum of ECU 299,77 million was paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(13 May 1998)

Subject: Frontier controls

Does the Commission still stand by its answers to Parliamentary Questions 1692/84(1), 1789/85(2), 1071/82(3) and 1508/87(4), whereby national officials are not allowed to require EU citizens travelling from one Member State to another to answer questions relating to the duration or purpose of their visit or their destination? Does this apply equally to national officials from the Member States of departure and of arrival? Will this situation change with the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, in particular as regards the United Kingdom and Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Yes. The Court of Justice confirmed this interpretation of secondary legislation on the free movement of persons and family members in its judgment of 30 May 1991 in Case C-68/89(5).

Yes. Secondary legislation states that persons may leave the territory of a Member State and enter the territory of another Member State 'simply on production of a valid identity card or passport' (see Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 simply on production of a valid identity card or passport October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families)(6).

No. The application of secondary legislation on the free movement of citizens of the Union will not be affected by the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and its attached protocols.

(1) OJ C 269, 21.10.1985, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 314, 8.12.1986, p. 1.

(3) OJ C 12, 17.1.1983, p. 2.

(4) OJ C 263, 10.10.1988, p. 9.

(5) Commission v the Netherlands [1991] ECR I-2637.

(6) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 1998)

Subject: International Criminal Court

Will the Commission lend its support to moves to define as a war crime the recruiting and use of children below the age of 15 as soldiers in the current negotiations to establish a permanent International Criminal Court?

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

(3 September 1998)

The establishment of an International Criminal Court is not a matter falling within the competence of the Community, which has observer status at the United Nations but does not participate directly in the current negotiations on setting up the Court and has therefore been unable to state its views directly on the wording of the different definitions of war crimes presented as options.

Clearly, however, the Community supports the initiative to define as war crimes the activities to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Application of Directive 93/119/EC in France (Eid-El-Kebir)

In reply to my written question of November 1997 on this matter (E-3925/97)(1) the Commission stated:

"The Commission is not satisfied about the fact that France has permitted, in certain circumstances, the practice of ritual slaughter outside slaughterhouses. Therefore the Commission is preparing a request to the French authorities to confirm that next year this ritual slaughter will be organized completely according to the Community rules concerned.

If this confirmation is not supplied, the Commission will open the infringement procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty."

This month, France has once again failed to enforce the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 93/119/EC(2) regarding the slaughter of animals.

1. Has the Commission submitted the request referred to above to the French authorities?

2. Have the French authorities replied?

3. Will the Commission now open the infringement procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

1. The request was made by letter to France dated 17 December 1997.

2. The French authorities replied on 8 April 1998 providing detailed observations on the recent developments which have occurred in relation to the problem and the various actions taken.

3. The Commission will in due course examine what further action to take in the light of this reply.

(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 92.

(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/98

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 June 1998)

Subject: Echelon spying system

A European Parliament STOA document and European press sources have reported the existence of an industrial spying computer network called Echelon to which the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia belong.

According to the STOA document, unlike other electronic spying systems in the UKUSA network, the Echelon system is directed mainly against non-military objectives of governments, organizations and companies in every country.

1. Does the Council not think that the Echelon programme, in which a Member State is one of the main participants (in the UK there are reputedly two bases out of six (at Mentmith Hill and Morwanatow)), manifestly violates solidarity between the Member States of the Union?

2. Does it not think that industrial spying conflicts with the Treaties and could distort competition?

3. Does it not think that industrial spying violates Article 51 of the UN Charter?

4. What immediate action will the Council take to put an end to this form of industrial espionage?

5. What emergency measures does the Council intend to take against the United Kingdom, the United States and the other countries involved in the Echelon industrial espionage system?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council is not aware of the matters mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(3 April 1998)

Subject: Utilization of Europol to combat crime

Can the Council say what steps it intends to take to encourage the utilization of Europol to help in combating cross-border crime during the Presidency?

Particularly in the light of the World Cup in France in June 1996, will the Presidency encourage the use of Europol to act as a clearing house for information on those individuals throughout the Union convicted of football and related offences?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

1. Following ratification by all Member States (the last Member State to do so gave notification of its ratification on 12 June 1998), the Europol Convention(1) will enter into force on 1 October 1998 pursuant to Article 45 of the Convention.

However, Europol cannot take up activities in combating cross-border crime until the last instrument mentioned in Article 45, paragraph 4, of the Convention has entered into force.

Until the date Europol takes up its activities, the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU) - precursor to Europol - remains active (Article 45, paragraph 5, of the Convention) in a number of drugs and organized crime related fields set out in Joint Action 95/73/JHA of 10 March 1995(2) and Joint Action 96/748/JHA of 16 December 1996.(3) These Joint Actions do not provide for a specific role of EDU in regard to football hooliganism and related offences.

2. As far as football hooliganism and related offences are concerned, the Council at its meeting on 28/29 May 1998 took note of the report on the implementation of the Resolution of 9 June 1997 on preventing and restraining football hooliganism through exchange of experience, exclusion from stadiums and media policy.

Representatives from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany had been tasked with compiling annual reports on football hooliganism throughout the EU. The aim is threefold: to give an accurate overview of the current situation in all Member States, to identify current weaknesses as well as to increase international co-operation and mutual assistance between Law Enforcement Agencies.

It should be noted that a seminar on football hooliganism was held in Blackburn on 27/28 February 1998. The report submitted to the Council takes account of the conclusions drawn at that seminar.

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 62, 20.3.1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 342, 31.12.1996, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Funding of new road at Perama

The area of Perama is linked to the surrounding region by a single road. This road serves the needs of the region, the ferry linking Piraeus with Salamis, the shipyards and the new freight station at the port of Piraeus. The result of this is severe traffic congestion from all sizes of vehicle. A second road, which has been planned since 1960, would solve the area's traffic problems.

Has the Attica region proposed that the road should be incorporated in the second CSF? If not, is there any scope for intervention under the second CSF?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(3 August 1998)

The operational programme (OP) 1994-99 for the Attiki region is not assisting the construction of a new road at Perama, nor did Attiki propose that project for funding.

It is for the Greek authorities to propose the allocation of funding among projects, taking into account of course the criteria and priorities laid down in the OP as approved by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1753/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Trapping of wild birds in Catalonia

Is the Commission aware that at certain times of the year it is permitted in Catalonia to trap small migrant birds by the use of liming? Is this not unlawful under the Wild Birds Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Hunting with lime is strictly forbidden by Council Directive 79/409/EEC, of 2 April 1979, on the protection of wild birds(1). Article 8 paragraph 1 reads as follows:

"In respect of the hunting, capture or killing of birds under this Directive, Member States shall prohibit the use of all means, arrangements or methods used for the large-scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds or capable of causing the local disappearance of a species, in particular the use of those listed in Annex IV(a)".

Hunting with lime is listed in Annex IV(a) to the Directive.

The Commission is aware that hunting with lime is still authorized in Catalonia, by means of derogations granted on the basis of Article 9, paragraph 1, (a) of the Directive. This provision states that Member States may derogate from the provisions of Article 8, where there is no other satisfactory solution to prevent serious damage to crops.

The Commission is aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member and has opened an own initiative case to check whether the conditions for granting derogations set out in Article 9 of the Directive are fully met in this case.

Should the Commission find that this derogation was not granted in compliance with the strict conditions set out in Article 9 of the Directive, it will take all necessary measures to ensure full compliance including, if necessary, the procedure set out in Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1992/98

by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: Failure of the ZAL plan in Valencia to comply with the European directive on environmental impact

The draft special plan to extend publicly owned land in the Autonomous Region of Valencia for the development of the logistical activities zone (ZAL) has become a highly controversial issue. Concerned about the erosion of the green belt, inconsistencies in the projects and growth forecasts drawn up by the Port Authority of Valencia (APV) and the scant development of existing port areas, numerous environmental bodies, residents' associations and community groups have voiced their opposition by lodging 15 000 complaints with the Department for Public Works of the Autonomous Region of Valencia. Moreover, the project appears to have sidestepped the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of 27 June 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

Article 2 of the directive stipulates that before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.

Were it to go ahead, the plan would definitely affect 50 hectares and most likely cover a further 25 hectares. It would have a direct impact on the district of La Punta, where land in the green belt continues to face an uncertain future, a matter brought to the Commission's attention in Written Question E-0032/98(2). Furthermore, the plan, if implemented, would involve expropriating private property and forcing people to leave their homes.

1. Can the Commission establish whether the project has followed the environmental impact assessment procedure in compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC?

2. If infringement of the above directive is established, can the Commission prevent this project from going ahead and demand compliance with the directive, in order to ensure that the legislation in force within the European Union is upheld?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 1998)

Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment only concerns actual projects.

Therefore that Directive does not apply to plans as described by the Honourable Member to extend publicly-owned land for the purposes of logistical activities.

If actual projects deriving from this plan were to be put into practice it would be appropriate to establish whether they are covered by the abovementioned Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 89.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1116/98

by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission

(8 April 1998)

Subject: Structural funding for Tyrol

The Land of Tyrol, Austria, receives EU structural funding only under the funding for Objective 5b regions. Following the reforms of the European Union's structural payments, the current Objective 5b regions are to be incorporated into Objective 2 funding. The following important questions arise for Tyrol:

1. What are the arguments in favour of this course of action?

2. What effect will this reform have on Tyrol, Austria?

3. As a result of these reforms, will there be a reduction in areas in Tyrol, which will receive support?

4. Will the total amount of aid made available to Tyrol be reduced?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 1998)

The Commission has proposed a new objective 2 for areas experiencing the effects of economic and social restructuring. The causes of restructuring are varied and the new objective 2 would offer support to areas undergoing socio-economic change in the industrial and service sectors, declining rural areas, urban areas in difficulty and depressed areas dependent on fisheries.

Apart from contributing to a simplification of the Community's cohesion policies, by reducing the number of priority objectives, there are two main advantages of the new, unified objective 2. First, the Commission has proposed that there should be only one objective 2 programme per region - defined in general at the nomenclature of territorial statistical units (NUTS) 2 level - combining actions for all the eligible areas within it. This would reduce the number of programmes and the associated administrative overheads. Second, by combining the different eligible areas within a single programme, new opportunities to create synergies could be exploited. For example, programmes could address the improvement of links between eligible urban and rural areas, helping to develop urban service areas for the benefit of rural areas.

The list of areas eligible for the new objective 2 would be determined in partnership between the Commission and the national authorities. The final list would be drawn up by the Commission, after the regulation has been adopted, on the basis of lists of areas proposed by the Member States and in the light of the most recent data.

It is at this stage too early to speculate on the future eligibility of any given region. The same applies to budgetary allocations under the new objective 2. These can only be decided once the list of areas is known.

In addition, outside the interventions under the structural funds, the Commission has also proposed that rural development measures should be available throughout the Community as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy.