ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4009/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Participation of Greece in programmes for the elderly

According to Eurolink Age, the elderly and the organizations working with them may take advantage of various European programmes such as:

- health promotion: budget heading B3-4300,

- health surveillance: budget heading B3-4306,

- Alzheimer's disease: budget heading B3-4304,

- free movement of workers and measures to benefit migrants: budget heading B3-4110,

- action to integrate refugees: budget heading B3-4113.

Will the Commission say:

1. whether Greece has submitted applications to take part in any of the above programmes, and

2. if so, in which programmes, what measures are involved and what is the budget for them?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 1999)

The Commission is happy to provide the Honourable Member with information on the budget headings mentioned in his question:

- health promotion programme (B3-4300): Eight projects from Greece have been supported, with a total budget of [fmxeuro] 2 195 421. The Commission has co-financed [fmxeuro] 1 045 508;

- Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRD) (B3-4300, B3-4307 and B3-4304): Three projects from Greece have been selected, with a total budget of [fmxeuro] 237 592. The Commission has co-financed [fmxeuro] 159 231;

- the Commission has so far not supported projects received from Greek organisations or citizens in health monitoring (B-4306);

- no applications from Greek organisations or citizens for actions in favour of older migrants were submitted to take part in any of the programmes related to free movement of workers and measures to benefit migrants (B3-4110) or action to integrate refugees (B3-4113).

The Commission would point out that any Member State, organisation or individual may take advantage of the European public health programmes adopted in accordance with Article 129 of the EC Treaty. However, it only co-finances projects encompassing several and preferably all Member States. Some applications have had Greek citizens and organisations acting as project leaders, but there has also been Greek participation in many more projects where project leaders have not been of Greek nationality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4084/98

by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Exclusion of SMIs from European trade union negotiations

Organisations representing European SMIs are normally only consulted by the Commission and systematically excluded from negotiations, to which only organisations representing big business are invited.

Nevertheless, as the statistics clearly show, SMIs are the only ones to have created new jobs in recent decades, and the number of people employed by big business has continued to decrease.

Does the Commission not think that this state of affairs should be rectified and European organisations representing SMIs allowed to participate in trade union negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 1999)

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) have a crucial role in contributing to wealth and jobs in the Community. The Commission has a duty to promote the European social dialogue and to ensure maximum representativeness in consultation and in the implementation of agreements according to the respective principles underlying these processes.

The Commission and the Council have the responsibility to control that the signatories to an agreement reached by the social partners, which is to be transposed into Community legislation, are sufficiently representative in relation to the scope of the agreement. However, the institutions have to fully respect the autonomy of the social partners and cannot intervene in the free choice of negotiating partner.

In its communication, "Adapting and promoting social dialogue at Community level" of 20 May 1998(1), the Commission gave a clear message urging the social partners to ensure that their dialogue remains strong and continues to attract widespread support by ensuring optimum representation. This message, which was very much in line with the position of the Parliament on the green paper which preceded the communication(2), led to a serious discussion between the Union of industrial and employers' confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the European Union of crafts and small and medium sized enterprises (UEAPME) on the possibility for the latter to take part in all the relevant joint-action and negotiation processes within the European social dialogue. The two organisations concluded an agreement at the end of 1998 on cooperation between UNICE and UEAPME in the social dialogue meetings, including negotiations. The Commission welcomes this as an important step forward regarding constructive dialogue and broader participation in social partner negotiations at European level.

(1) COM(98) 322 final.

(2) COM(96) 448 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3677/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Budgetary measures concerning asylum and immigration

According to the press (Bulletin quotidien Europe, No 7307, p. 8), following the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in September at the meeting with the applicant countries the latter were given information on the budgetary measures taken by the EU in the fields of asylum and immigration.

1. What was the natural of this information?

2. Could the Council state whether these "measures" - and, if so, which ones - have a tangible impact on the forthcoming enlargement and what sums are involved?

Reply

(29 March 1999)

At the meeting of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union with the applicant countries on 24 September 1998 the Commission of the European Communities merely took stock of the various financial support initiatives in favour of accession in the field of asylum and immigration, in particular under the PHARE programme, which also now includes a JHA section. The Honourable Member should ask the Commission, which manages the said programme, for further details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3213/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Funding of National Employment Scheme in Greece

According to the Commission's answer to my Written Question No E-1861/98(1) concerning the progress of the "Education and Initial Vocational Training" programme, proposals were made to cut the programme's funding to ensure the full and timely use of European Social Fund resources.

As the Commission is aware, approximately 50 % of the funding for measures under the National Employment Scheme in Greece is dependent on the above programme. How and with what funds, therefore, will the Greek National Employment Scheme be financed, given that it will be deprived of the bulk of its funding through the above cuts?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

At its meeting of 21 July 1998, the monitoring committee in charge of the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece examined its progress and made decisions in connection with its mid-term review and reprogramming.

The operational programme "Education and initial training" was modified (European social fund participation reduced by ECU 190 million, European regional development fund contribution increased by ECU 49 million, and available credits increased by 8 000 million drachma because of the devaluation of the drachma towards the ECU), mainly for reasons of poor financial performance up to that moment.

The programme "Continuing training and employment promotion" was reinforced. The extra funds transferred to this programme will be used to support actions linked with the functioning of new childcare institutions and the promotion of other active labour market measures of the national action plan for employment (NAP).

These decisions respect the 1998 employment guidelines and the priorities of the Greek NAP. In addition, the Commission believes that they will facilitate the implementation of the CSF operational programmes and will improve their financial take-up, fourteen months before the end of the CSF.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 104.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3888/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Funding for NGOs

How is the Commission addressing the delays that NGOs are experiencing when seeking co-financing from Item B7-6000?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3887/98 and E-3888/98 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

1. Applications for funding under budget line B7-6000 are appraised and prioritised according to Council Regulation (EC) 1658/98 of 17 July 1998 on co-financing operations with European non-governmental development organisations (NGOs) in fields of interest to the developing countries(1), as well as the general conditions for co-financing with NGOs. Projects are chosen on the basis of their viability, their impact on the poorest, and their compatibility with Community development objectives.

2. Some NGOs experienced delays in 1998 in obtaining decisions on their funding requests. This was due primarily to the decision of the Commission to suspend the execution of the budget line following the judgment of the Court of justice on the absence of a legal basis and before the interinstitutional agreement in July 1998.

The Commission is now giving priority to the examination of proposals to allow the current backlog to be eliminated in the first months of 1999.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3868/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(9 December 1998)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)

We have noted the answers of 20 November 1998 by Mrs Cresson, on behalf of the Commission, to my initial questions on the problems with the storage capacity for nuclear waste from the High Flux Reactor in Petten (E-3041/98)(1). It is clear from your answers that this problem falls within the remit of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) since it is responsible for operational matters.

1. The 'second-string solution' referred to in your answer will also create major problems, since the reactor building's tank is reaching capacity. Will the Commission now speedily search for a new solution?

2. The Commission's answer states that waste management is a national matter. However, we are talking here about a JRC which is run by the Commmission. Is the solution to this problem not then partly the Commission's responsibility? Will the Commission now bring in other EU Member States to help to resolve this problem?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 1999)

1. The solution proposed for the storage of the High flux reactor (HFR) spent fuel elements in case of delayed availability of the storage at the Habog facility "Centrale organisatie voor radioactif afval" (COVRA project) namely storage in the reactor pound, is indeed a limited solution. At the end of 1999 all storage space in the pound will have been used and other solutions are necessary.

As the fresh fuel was made of American origin material, one other option would be to send the spent fuel back to the United States, as was done before 1988. But a prior condition imposed by the American authorities is a commitment to convert the HFR from present highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. However such a conversion is a costly technical operation. It should not inflict losses on the technical characteristics of this reactor, which produces about 60 % of radio-pharmaceutical products used in Europe, nor reduce its competitive edge in this market which is already very tight. Appropriate studies have therefore been launched and, if a positive outcome is obtained, spent fuel could be sent back to the United States in 1999. The HFR budget would have to be adjusted to such an expensive solution.

Reprocessing in France was analysed as well. This option has some advantages but it necessitates the return of waste to the Netherlands after several years. Furthermore, reprocessing in France, with relative correlated actions, is an expensive solution not covered by the HFR budget.

2. No Member State has a well established, accepted and licensed waste disposal facility for high level waste or spent fuel, and for the time being there is an obligation to return waste to the country where the plant is situated. No trend towards an internationalisation or even "europeanisation" of waste storage is foreseen.

(1) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 75.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/98

by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Assessing the various consequences of abandoning the International Space Station

The first section of the International Space Station was launched successfully from Baikonur (Kazakhstan) on 20 November 1998. It is designed to turn into reality things that have for decades been science-fiction dreams. On 3 December the module Zarya (Sunrise) will be joined by the connecting module Unity launched from the United States. There have already been delays owing to economic problems in Russia, but the most serious problem is that there is a new timetable for Russia's launching of the service module, now scheduled for July 1999. In the meantime there is growing criticism. A significant example is the editorial in the 14 November issue of The Economist, which says "With Russia's contribution to the project fast dwindling to nothing, the station is now losing even symbolic value..., should it be going ahead at all? The answer is no." Nothing is said about assessing the consequences of abandoning the project.

All this is symptomatic of the growing difficulties of international cooperation in various fields of megascience, space, nuclear fusion, etc. Can the Commission say what the European position is and what is at stake for the European Space Agency and its members?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Although the United States have staked a considerable amount in the Station, in terms of image and of capacity to be allotted to extensive international cooperation, this has only been modestly reflected in Europe since involvement by the Member States, Norway and Switzerland only accounts for roughly 8,5 % of the total estimated development cost, of EUR 35 000 million, or in other words some EUR 3 000 million.

Europe's contribution to the international space station basically derives from decisions taken within the European Space Agency. That contribution currently takes up 16 % of the current Agency budget and should not exceed 20 % over the next five years. No development funding for the station is planned under the fifth framework programme for research and development.

The station should enable a large number of the techniques needed to continue the conquest of space to be tested and may, in view of its legal and financial aspects, be considered to be the prototype for the international associations needed for this type of venture. However, in view of the restricted European commitment, shutting down the station would have no impact on Europe's space industry.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3852/98

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Financial endowment of BISTRO - beneficiaries of TACIS-LIEN

1. Can the Commission provide any information on the financial endowment of the BISTRO programme for 1998 and 1999? In particular, what amount of the resources has not yet been committed?

2. Can the Commission say how many applicants there have been in all for assistance from BISTRO in 1998? What is the average amount of assistance provided per application?

3. How are approved applications shared among counterparts and NGOs in the various Member States?

4. May applications be made for assistance for projects with partners in Kazakhstan under the TACIS-LIEN programme?

5. If not, how does the Commission explain that members of its delegation in Kazakhstan recommend German applicants to apply for assistance for projects with partners in Kazakhstan under the TACIS-LIEN programme, although the relevant guidelines on the TACIS-LIEN programme specify that Kazakhstan is not endowed with a LIEN discretionary budget and that any application is therefore bound to fail?

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

(4 February 1999)

1. In the 1996-1997 action programme the Kazakstan Bistro budget amounted to ECU 1 million. Half of the ECU 1 million of the 1996/1997 budget is still available. The next action programme is still under negotiation. Hence, no budget figure can be given yet.

2. The Bistro programme is managed by the delegation of the Commission in Alma Aty which so far has received 34 applications. Nine of them have been approved. The average budget of a Bistro project is [fmxeuro]44 000.

3. From the nine approved projects three have been concluded with Kazakh institutions. The remaining six projects have been concluded with four Member States: (Germany 2; France 1; Netherlands 1 and United Kingdom 2).

4. Yes, projects with Kazakh partners could be requested.

5. The delegation of the Commission in Alma Aty has the role to provide information on the spot on how to obtain TACIS support about all the available facilities. There are two on-going LIEN projects in Kazakstan which were financed under the 1997 programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Legalisation of illegal immigrants

The report on the human rights situation in the European Union in 1996 that was adopted during the February part-session singled out a number of Member States in which the residential status of persons living illegally in their territory is legalised after a given period.

1. Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the Union's current legislation?

2. Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the Schengen acquis?

3. What does the Commission intend to do as regards integrating the Schengen acquis into the Community and such differences?

Answer given by MrMonti on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3223/98

by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Radio broadcasting

The French authorities recently closed down a radio station for a day as a penalty for having broadcast more foreign songs than the statutory limit.

Could the Commission state whether the legislation in question complies with the European rules on free competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 1998)

French Law No 94/88 of 1 February 1994 amending Law No 86/1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication stipulates that, with effect from 1 January 1996, sound broadcasting services authorised by the Conseil superieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA) must broadcast, at "significant listening times"(1), at least 40 % of songs in French, half of which at least must be from "new talents or new productions". The CSA checks compliance with these quotas on a quarterly basis and is entitled to impose sanctions - ranging from a simple warning to compulsory closure - on stations which fail to comply.

The Commission is aware that this obligation creates problems for a number of stations which, by their very nature or by virtue of their programming decisions, regularly fail to meet the imposed quota. It has taken note in the press of the successive sanctions imposed on the station referred to by the honourable Member.

The Commission has embarked upon talks with the French authorities regarding these quotas and the way in which they operate, since it considers that they may restrict the free movement of services in the Community. In the near future the Commission will assess these restrictions in the light of the objectives of general interest, particularly the cultural policy objectives, pursued by the French authorities.

(1) From 6.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. according to the CSA.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/98

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 1998)

Subject: Use of indexation appropriations for Structural Funds

At the Edinburgh summit the breakdown of funding from the Structural Funds among the Member States was agreed. As the breakdown was expressed in monetary terms on the basis of the funding available for the first year of the programme, the loss of value caused by inflation is corrected by means of indexation appropriations.

However, the Finnish Government is proposing to the Finnish Parliament in the budget for next year that Finland should not take up its share of the indexation appropriations unless the required national counterpart funding is provided from a source other than the Finnish State.

1. Which Member States have already during the past programming period waived part of the structural funding or indexation appropriations allocated to them?

2. Which Member States have announced that they will not accept basic funding from the Structural Funds or the indexation appropriations linked to them?

3. Under the documents concerning programmes for the Objectives drawn up between the EU and a Member State, is it permissible for the Member State not to accept indexation appropriations?

4. How will the EU defend the Objective regions in the Member States which - due to the actions of their governments - are in danger of losing the appropriations earmarked for them in the Objective programme agreements?

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

(24 November 1998)

Under the implementing provisions contained in each Community support framework (CSF) and single programming document (SPD), indexation concerns only Community funding. Although national or regional part-financing of the resources so generated is usual, it is essential only where those resources are allocated to forms of assistance for which - as a result of the indexation of Community funds - the part-financing limits stipulated in the relevant CSFs and SPDs would be reached or exceeded without such part-financing.

1. and 2. The Commission is not aware that any Member State has waived, or announced its intention to waive, Structural Fund assistance or its indexation.

3. The implementing provisions referred to above, and in particular those on indexation, form an integral part of the requirements with which the Commission and the Member State concerned must comply. Indexation of appropriations allocated to CSFs and SPDs is thus the rule.

4. The relevant Monitoring Committee proposes how the resources generated by indexation are to be allocated within the CSF or SPD for which it is responsible. The committee works on the basis of a partnership involving, among others, the bodies responsible at regional or local level as designated by the Member State. The Commission seeks to ensure that the resources generated by indexation are allocated in a manner which best achieves the objectives set out in the CSFs and SPDs and brings maximum benefit to the eligible regions.