ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3114/98

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Roof renovation products

Is the Commission aware that certain products for the renovation of flat roofs that are permitted and used in other Member states, such as the United Kingdom, are banned in Germany by virtue of the outdated DIN (German industrial standard) 16726? This is detrimental to the internal market.

What steps does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 1998)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about obstacles to the free circulation of building products on the Community territory.

The primary aim of Directive 89/106/EEC(1) on construction products is, precisely, to eliminate technical obstacles to intra-Community trade in such products. This Directive stipulates that such products may only be put on the market if they are "fit for the intended use", a notion defined in relation to certain essential requirements regarding the works contained in the Directive. It also stipulates that "fitness for intended use" is to be assessed with special reference to harmonised technical specifications adopted on mandates given by the Commission.

The roof renovation products referred to by the Honourable Member are the subject of a standardisation mandate annexed to Commission Decision 98/436/EC of 22 June 1998(2) (on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards roof coverings, rooflights, roof windows and ancillary products). Specifically, the mandate is for a harmonised standard on roof coverings, rooflights, roof windows and ancillary products to be drawn up by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

Under the Directive, only compliance with this standard will entitle products to circulate freely with the EC mark without any further test. In the interim, national standards (DIN 16726, for example) will apply, but Member States must accept other national standards which are equivalent in health, safety, energy saving and environmental terms on the basis of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. Furthermore the Commission is currently contemplating an amendment to Directive 89/106 so as to accelerate the standardisation programme and to open up an alternative route for issue of the EC mark, on the basis of decisions already taken regarding proof of compliance and of the mandates drawn up in concertation with the Standing Committee on Construction.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2) OJ L 194, 10.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3519/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Monitoring of State aid

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (COM(98) 0073 final - 98(0060 CNS)(1), it should be pointed out with regard to the rights of third parties in general there is no provision in this proposal authorising the Commission to publish the notification of a specific aid or to provide basic information on the aid granted.

Given that the lack of such a provision adversely affects transparency and infringes the rights of third parties, can the Commission take urgent action in this respect?

(1) OJ C 116, 16.4.1998, p. 13.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3517/98, E-3518/98 and E-3519/98 given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Commission welcomes the support given by the Honourable Member for its proposal for a Regulation on aid procedures, which is aimed at increasing transparency and legal certainty and making control more efficient.

Articles 11 and 14 are indeed important tools for making control more efficient, especially as regards unlawful aid. Where unlawful aid is also incompatible with the common market, the Regulation lays down the principle that the Commission must require its recovery. The Member State must then effect recovery without delay, in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided, however, that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission's decision. In addition, the Member State is required to take all necessary measures, even provisional ones, to achieve that end. The Commission will ensure that recovery is not delayed by time-wasting procedures and will use the means at its disposal, including actions before the Court of Justice, to enforce compliance with its decisions.

As regards the scope of the Regulation, it covers all aid coming under Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. Insofar as certain tax measures satisfy the conditions of Article 92(1), they are therefore also covered by the Regulation.

There is no provision in the Commission proposal for the publishing of notifications, for legal and practical reasons. The purpose of such an exercise would be to invite third parties to submit comments. The EC Treaty reserves this third-party role for the formal investigation procedure: the decision to initiate the procedure is published in the Official Journal. Such a procedure is mandatory in all aid cases which give rise to doubts as to their compatibility with the common market. It does, however, appear unnecessary for a large number of routine cases which quite clearly satisfy the criteria published by the Commission, and for which it would only delay the Commission's decisions. All Commission decisions are, however, published in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/98

by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Council

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation in the field of employment creation and support to small and micro-enterprises in the Maghreb countries

In July 1994 the Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation in the field of employment creation and support to small and micro-enterprises in the Maghreb countries, requiring the cooperation procedure.

Conscious of the importance of its report, Parliament completed the procedure as speedily as possible and delivered its opinion at first reading on 28 October 1994. The Commission subsequently submitted a modified version of the original proposal on 22 December 1994, in which it incorporated most of Parliament's amendments.

Since then Parliament has been awaiting the common position of the Council, but no such text has been forthcoming and no explanation has been given for the failure to submit it.

The situation has now become even more serious in view of recent events surrounding the growing illegal emigration from the Maghreb countries (chiefly Morocco) to Spain, with more than 200 people losing their lives in the Strait of Gibraltar in the current year alone.

Can the Council give any reason for the delay in submitting its common position?

Can the Council say when it expects to forward the common position?

Reply

(18/19 January 1999)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Council's reply to Written Question No 0364/98 by Mr Fernández Martín.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU funds to Tirol (Austria)

With regard to the allocation of EU funds to the State of Tirol, can the Commission provide information as to:

1. the total amount of EU structural fund appropriations provided, with a breakdown by fund and by individual Community programme and/or initiative, and the amount of EU funds charged to other budgetary headings and disbursed since 1995 for pilot projects and other measures or as direct payments to research institutes, universities, undertakings and other bodies in the State of Tirol;

2. the number of jobs created or saved with the help of these funds?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/98

by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Fares for large families

The French press recently reported the Commission's intention of banning "large family" fares on the French railways.

The Commission's denials do not appear to have allayed the fears voiced by family associations and consumer groups.

Can the Commission state its exact position on this matter and say how it presented it to the public, particularly in France?

Many French travellers are also surprised that, despite the public service obligation "fulfilled by the trans-frontier TGV trains" no reductions are offered to families travelling on these routes. Can the Commission state its position?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

Following the information that appeared in the press concerning the Commission's reasoned opinion on the availability to cross-border workers not resident in France, under the same conditions as to French citizens, of the reduced fare cards for large families offered by the Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF)(1), the Commission published a further press release on 26 June 1998 emphasising the fact that French citizens, whether or not they reside in France, retain all their rights in respect of obtaining or keeping an SNCF reduction card for large families. The Commission makes the point that all citizens of other Member States resident in France must enjoy the same advantage, and also wishes to make it clear that its reasoned opinion refers only to non-French cross-border workers, who currently cannot obtain a reduction card. Finally, the Commission states that it is not asking France, under any circumstances, to abolish this system of reduction cards.

The Commission has furthermore initiated procedures against the three other Member States (Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg) whose legislation imposes similar residence conditions preventing cross-border workers from obtaining the reductions offered to large families(2).

SNCF and Westrail International (Thalys) confirm the information the Honourable Member has received as regards the availability of reductions for families travelling on transfrontier high speed trains. According to the parties concerned, there are, firstly, no public service obligations at all for Thalys services. Secondly, regarding normal high speed services, there is no such obligation for international journeys and, consequently, no such reduction schemes are applied to tickets bought for international journeys.

(1) IP/98/421.

(2) IP/98/884.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2472/98

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Use of funds in the Valencia region

With reference to the use of the funds which the Commission has allocated to agricultural conversion and restructuring in dry and mountainous areas of the Valencia region, has the Commission assessed the natural imbalances which may be caused, such as a water shortage or overproduction of citrus fruit?

If such imbalances do indeed occur, what action would the Commission take in order to prevent irreparable damage to the natural equilibrium?

Answer given by Mr Fischler behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

In order to remedy natural imbalances, the Valencia region implements a series of Community measures, among which prominently figure actions under the operational programme for agriculture and rural development under Objective 1 in the Autonomous Community of Valencia. The programme introduces measures for restructuring and modernising the citrus fruit sector, the aim being to improve quality in line with market requirements and so reduce the risks of overproduction in the region. Also included in this programme are environment-friendly measures, namely erosion control, preservation of water resources and increased efficiency in the use of water for irrigation. The compensatory allowances for farmers in less-favoured areas, including mountain areas, also play a role in preserving the countryside by maintaining agricultural activity in these sensitive areas.

In connection with natural equilibrium, mention should also be made of the agri-environmental programme which introduces a system of aid for farmers who undertake to cultivate agricultural land in a way that is compatible with the requirements for the protection of the environment and the upkeep of the countryside. This part-financed arrangement includes specific premiums for citrus fruits. In addition, as part of the market organisation for fruit and vegetables, operational programmes for producer organisations are envisaged which, among other things, seek to promote methods for the production and management of waste that are compatible with the environment, in particular with a view to protecting the quality of water, soil and landscape and preserving biodiversity.

The Autonomous Community of Valencia will continue in the future to pursue a policy for the harmonised, integrated and sustainable development of rural areas by giving top priority to the protection of the environment and the countryside.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Aid adjustments and the COM in olive oil

Does the most recent reform of the COM in olive oil approved by the Council of Ministers for Agriculture at its meeting in Luxembourg from 22 to 25 June 1998, or any other provision in force, prevent national governments from making adjustments to the aid earmarked for olive oil producers on socioeconomic, employment, environmental or other grounds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 1998)

The compromise on olive oil reached by the Council on 25 June 1998 and implemented by Council Regulation (EC) 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the common organisation of the markets in oils and fats(1) introduces the most pressing measures to avert the greatest difficulties likely to face farmers and other operators.

More basic measures are planned as from 1 November 2001.

In this context, and in view of the difficulties involved in monitoring different levels of aid for produce in free circulation, no provision has been made for differentiating aid on the basis of different relevant criteria.

Generally speaking, the Commission has proposed to introduce differentiation for all direct aid to producers as part of the Agenda 2000 reforms.

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3304/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Council. Code of conduct on arms exports



Official Journal C 182 , 28/06/1999 P. 0062



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/98 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Council (10 November 1998) Subject: Code of conduct on arms exports The objective of the recent code of conduct on arms exports is to "prevent the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression." What is the position on equipment which may be used in violations of human rights outside the recipient country's borders? Is it covered by the code?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4081/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(14 January 1999)

Subject: Establishment of EU officials

What disciplinary measures are available for use against EU officials who have become established on the basis of false or incomplete statements about their qualifications, in violation of both EU Staff Regulations and the law of the host country?

Is there a time limit for the application of any sanctions or disciplinary measures that may exist?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 1999)

Articles 28 and 30 of the Staff Regulations provide that, with the exception of Grades A1 and A2, only a person who has passed a competition based on qualifications or tests or both, as provided for in Annex III, and whose name has been placed on the list of suitable candidates by the selection board can be appointed an official.

Where a candidate has been placed on the list on the basis of false statements or falsified documents, the selection board has the power to cancel its previous decision and drop the candidate from the list of suitable candidates as soon as it is acquainted with this fact. The administration is obliged to refuse to appoint a candidate who was wrongly entered on the list of suitable candidates.

It should be noted that, upon recruitment, an official must supply the administration with full particulars of his training and qualifications for grading purposes.

An official who supplies false information will have failed to meet the obligations of integrity and respect for the dignity of the function imposed by the Staff Regulations; he will accordingly be liable to disciplinary measures.

Regarding the Honourable Member's second question, the Staff Regulations provide for no limitation periods either for disciplinary offences or for proceedings or penalties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/98

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Council

(4 December 1998)

Subject: Discriminatory checks within the Schengen area

A programme was recently broadcast on Swedish television in which two TV reporters with foreign backgrounds travelled through the EU to test freedom of movement for individuals. It turned out that they were subjected to systematic checks both at borders and after they had entered the country where they intended to stay, the apparent reason being that they were originally of a non-European background. They were subjected to visual discrimination even though they were born in Sweden and are Swedish citizens. Human rights organizations throughout the Schengen area confirm this discrimination.

1. Is it the Council's view that such systematic discrimination is the price to be paid for Schengen?

2. What does the Council intend to do to prevent the visual discrimination that results from having no checks at borders within Schengen?

3. Does the Council consider that a "non-European appearance" is sufficient grounds for checks on individuals within the Schengen area?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

The question put by the Honourable Member relates to the implementation of the Schengen Agreement and is therefore not a matter for the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3810/98

by Ulla Sandbæk (I-EDN) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: EU's actions on endocrine-disrupters

The Commission indicated to Parliament in October that it would be looking at recommendations for short-, medium- and long-term EU actions on endocrine-disrupters. What is the Commission's proposed timetable for considering and approving those recommendations and then for taking action on them, in particular the short-term actions?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 1999)

The Commission is currently considering the components of an overall strategy for monitoring and preventing the risks associated with chemicals which can act as endocrine disrupters. It intends to present a communication on this subject in the course of the first half of 1999.

The Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) is also currently preparing a scientific opinion on this subject, the title of which will be along the lines of "Opinion of the SCTEE concerning the effects on human health and the environment of endocrine disrupters, focusing on ecotoxicological test methods." This opinion should be adopted in the course of 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/98

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Assessment of the impact of Commission exchange programmes on employment

Many of the Commission's youth and student exchange programmes have already been under way for a number of years. The Commission or private assessors contracted by it have given differing assessments of the programmes. The only bodies to have given positive assessments of the impact of the exchange programmes on employment are certain national agencies. Assessments have been made regionally and without coordination by the European Union. However, it would be possible to compile a wider assessment of the programmes' employment impact, because for example a significant number of past participants in the Erasmus programme have already completed their studies.

Will the Commission assess the impact of exchange programmes on employment?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

In line with Article 10 of the Decision establishing the Leonardo da Vinci programme(1) and Article 8 of the Decision establishing the Socrates programme(2), the Commission is preparing a final report on the implementation of the programmes to be presented to Community institutions in the year 2000. These will include - among other issues - the evaluation of the mobility measures supported by the programmes (study periods abroad, placements and exchange programmes) and of their effects on mid-term employment.

A tracer study was carried out in 1996(3) on the basis of a survey conducted five years after the study period abroad of a selected group of former Erasmus students. According to this study on the relation between study abroad and employment, career, and work tasks, many of the students (especially long-period Erasmus students - 6 to 12 months) succeeded in finding jobs and work tasks linked to their international experience. About a third of these students were offered employment abroad and about one fifth were employed abroad at the time of the survey, half of them in the Erasmus host country. Moreover, 71 % of these students were employed by internationally-oriented organizations or companies.

(1) OJ L 340, 29.12.1994.

(2) OJ L 87, 20.4.1995.

(3) F. Maiworm, U. Teichler, "Study abroad and early career experiences of former Erasmus students", Erasmus Monograph No 21, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd, UK, 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2877/98

by Christian Rovsing (PPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Subsidised school milk

Does the Commission think that the present distinction between milk products eligible for subsidies and those not as part of the EU's aid for the sale of school milk is in keeping with the times and with prevailing health policy thinking in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Commission has reason to believe that the operation of the Community school milk scheme in general, and the range of eligible products in particular, are indeed compatible with Member States' options on health policy.

The Commission would also refer to its reply to Written Question No 2731/98 by Mr Bonde on the same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Denied-boarding compensation system

With reference to the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) 295/91 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport (COM(98) 0041 final - 98/022 SYN)(1), can the Commission propose a clear method of calculating increases in denied-boarding compensation and a procedure for consulting the Member States and interested parties before adopting such increases?

(1) OJ C 120, 18.4.1998, p. 18.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3511/98, E-3512/98, E-3513/98 and E-3523/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.