ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/98 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (4 March 1998)

Subject: Cable car disaster caused by a US military aeroplane

In the Val di Fiemme, in the province of Trento, Italy, a US military plane (flying very low during a military exercise) hit the cable carrying a cable car, causing a disaster which claimed the lives of 20 people, including Germans, Hungarians, Poles and one Italian.

Various local authorities had already pointed out the dangerous nature of such flights, and similar events have happened in Italy in the past (for example at Casalecchio di Reno in 1990, when 12 people were killed and 90 injured, or the more widely publicized events at Ustica in 1980), without those responsible having yet been identified.

The Italian judiciary has been prevented from carrying out any investigation into the accident, because it is under the competence of the US military authorities. In view of the complexity of assigning judicial competence and the possibility of conflicting responsibilities, as well as military secrecy, which constitutes an obstacle to the investigations, can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers it appropriate to promote measures to safeguard the investigations and ensure the relatives of the victims that justice will be done;

2. whether there is legislation designed to ensure the safety of civilians when military exercises are being carried out?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (27 April 1998)

The Commission extends its deepest sympathy to the families of the victims and naturally hopes that the investigation into this accident will be totally impartial. However, the investigation is completely outside the Community's sphere of competence, and the Commission cannot, therefore, intervene. The judicial proceedings are the exclusive responsibility of the national and military authorities.

Nor does the Community have any powers as regards the protection of civilians during exercises by military aircraft, of the sort involved in the case in point, as the common transport policy deals only with civil aviation. Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents ((OJ L 319, 12.12.1994. )) does not, therefore, apply to military aviation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0145/98 by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Anti-poverty programmes

In 1996, the United Kingdom brought before the European Court of Justice a legal action concerning funding for the Commission's anti-poverty and other social programmes to help excluded groups.

What effect is this having on the Commission's work in the social sphere and on the non-governmental organizations which engage in it? How are programmes for the elderly and the disabled affected?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1998)

The action (C-239/96R) which the United Kingdom filed against the Commission challenges the legality of certain spending on budget line B3-4103.

On 24 September 1996, the President of the Court of Justice granted interim relief to the United Kingdom, which allowed for commitments to be made but required payments to be frozen until the judgment. Following that interim order of the President of the Court, applications for funding were evaluated and the selection of projects deserving support was concluded. Successful applicants were informed of the conditions fixed by the Court of Justice and invited to sign an agreement on those conditions. No payments have yet been made pursuant to any of these agreements, since the Court has not yet delivered its final judgment. Having regard to this uncertain situation, most applicants have delayed implementation of the projects concerned.

As a result of the pending Court of justice case, no new commitment credits were allocated to the concerned budget line during 1997. The budget line concerning the elderly, although affected by a similar Court case, did receive fresh commitment credits in 1997 which have also been allocated conditionally until the final judgement is known. No other budget lines are affected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Conversion of an Armenian Monastery into a Hotel in Occupied Cyprus

According to reports in the Turkish newspaper the 'Kibris Postasi' the Armenian monastery of 'Sourp Magar' dating from the year 1000 AD which was bombarded by the Turkish invading forces is to be converted into a 50-bed hotel. The monastery is situated in the area of Kyrenia in occupied Cyprus. The illegitimate government intends to lease it for 49 years for $20 000 annually.

This is another example of the disregard shown by the Turkish occupying forces for the cultural heritage of the island and is a clear indication of the respect due to Christian buildings in the eyes of the powers illegally occupying the Northern part of Cyprus.

What action does the Commission intend to take in response to this manifestly illegal action by a brutal regime supported only by its 40 000 strong armed forces which have been occupying 40% of Cyprus for 24 years?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (16 March 1998)

The recent visits of 800 Turkish Cypriots to a mosque in Larnaca and the pilgrimages of several hundreds of Greek Cypriots to a monastery in the north of the island are modest signs of progress in the relations between the two communities. The respect of each other's cultural heritage is a fundamental step in preserving the identify of the two Cypriot communities. The Commission would like to utilise part of the funds of the fourth financial protocol for the restoration of monuments in the entire island (as a bi-communal project). Although until now this has not been possible, the Commission will continue to support this type of initiative and hopes that the political circumstances in Cyprus might eventually allow its implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0641/98 by Jorge Hernandez Mollar (PPE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Conditions for upgrading the Spanish 'Ingeniero Técnico' engineering qualification in comparison with others

Why are applications accepted from holders of the British 'Bachelor of Arts', 'Bachelor of Science' and 'Bachelor of Engineering' qualifications - all of which are obtained after three years - but not from holders of the Spanish 'Ingeniero Técnico' qualification?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0635/98, E-0636/98, E-0637/98, E-0638/98, E-0639/98, E-0640/98, E-0641/98, E-0642/98, E-0643/98, E-0644/98, E-0645/98, E-0669/98, E-0670/98, E-0671/98, E-0672/98, E-0673/98, E-0674/98, E-0675/98, E-0676/98, E-0677/98, E-0678/98, E-0679/98, E-0724/98, E-0725/98, E-0726/98, E-0727/98 and E-0728/98 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1998)

The Commission feels that most of the information requested by the Honourable Member is contained in its answers to written questions E-2749/97 by Ms Garcia Arias ((OJ C 82, 17.3.1998. )) and E-4186/97 by Ms Dührkop Dührkop ((OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 15. )). The Commission would accordingly refer the Honourable Member to these answers, where it gave a full statement of its general approach to qualifications giving access to A/LA posts in the European public service and more specifically to qualifications held by Spanish technical engineers.

The correct translation of 'diploma universitario' into German is 'abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium', and that is the term used on the notice of competition COM/A/1047 (97/C 145 A/02) published in the Official Journal. With regard to Competition COM/A/720 and COM/A/821, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the judgment given on 3 March 1994 by the Court of First Instance in Case T-82/92 Cortés Jiménez v Commission.

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the candidate at competition COM/A/104 has brought an action, registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance under number T-299/97 on 1 December 1997. Accordingly the Commission cannot give an answer because the matter is sub judice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/98 by Andrea Manzella (PSE) to the Council (14 May 1998)

Subject: Conviction of General Oviedo

With regard to the present situation in Paraguay, can the Council say what views have been expressed and what moral suasion has been exercised with regard to the current electoral process? There are strong doubts about its regularity because of the arrest and conviction, under dubious circumstances and without proper guarantees, of General Luis Oviedo, the candidate who received the highest number of votes in the primary elections, recognized as legitimate by the competent judicial authority, and is by far the most popular candidate according to all the opinion polls.

Can it say, in particular, on the basis of the Paraguayan Government's official records, what the charges were, whether they were well-founded and whether the sentence passed on General Oviedo was in proportion to the offence?

Answer (20 July 1998)

1. Taking into account recent pre-electoral events the European Union held the opinion that, even if the situation was worrying, it would not be advisable for the Union to issue a further declaration on Paraguay, following the declaration of 19 November 1997 which stated the EU position. At the same time, within the framework of normal diplomatic contacts, the Union has conveyed to the Paraguayan authorities the concern expressed in this declaration. The Union has also been in close contact with the Mercosur Governments. It has taken careful note of their assessments of the Paraguayan situation and continues to monitor the situation. Furthermore, the EU has cofinanced with the Organization of America States (OAS) an observer electoral mission in Paraguay.

2. The Paraguayan Supreme Court confirmed in mid-April 1998 the sentence of the exceptional military tribunal (TME) which condemned General Oviedo to 10 years in prison for an attempted coup in April 1996.

The Council is not in a position to judge whether the charges were well-founded, nor if the sentence was in proportion to the offence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/98 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (24 April 1998)

Subject: LIFE/Azores

In view of the specific nature of Portugal's Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), would the Commission give details of the amount of Community support received by the region under the LIFE initiative during the 1994-1999 period? What does the Commission envisage as regards support during the 2000-2006 financial period?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1998)

With regard to LIFE-Environment, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that to be eligible for LIFE funding demonstration actions must be innovative and contribute towards the development and, where appropriate, implementation of Community environment policy and legislation. Such actions are submitted each year following calls for expressions of interest organised by the national authorities.

No proposal has been submitted for the Azores for the period 1994-1999, despite efforts to disseminate our programme in Portugal and efforts by the Portuguese Ministry of the Environment to encourage public bodies and private undertakings in Portugal to send in proposals.

As for LIFE-Nature, funded projects must contribute, in particular, to the implementation of the European Natura 2000 network.

During the period 1994-1999, the Azores region will receive LIFE funding for five projects (details available on the Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/home.htm).

As for the period 2000-2006, the fact that the approach is based on demand makes it impossible to anticipate whether and how the region will benefit from LIFE funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/98 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Payments of EU structural fund allocations to Member States

Would the Commission please indicate how and when it pays EU structural fund allocations to the Member States? For example, does it pay the UK Government an annual sum in advance for ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG, or does the UK Government claim the money retrospectively at certain times during the programme? I should be grateful for a detailed answer covering all four structural funds.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1998)

The procedures for structural funds payments by the Commission to Member States are laid down in Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). The payments are made in relation to budgetary commitments at Community level and take the form either of advances or of final payments in respect of expenditure actually incurred. For each commitment up to 80% may be paid in the form of advances. The payment of the balance is conditional on submission to the Commission of a satisfactory report on progress with implementation of the programme concerned.

These provisions apply to all structural funds and to all Member States, which are responsible in turn for ensuring that the final beneficiaries of the programmes receive payment as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1608/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (11 May 1998)

Subject: Genetic databases

1. Which EU Member States have DNA databases for criminal investigation purposes, and on what legal bases have they been set up?

2. For what offences, and at what stage (suspicion, reporting of offence to the police, prosecution, sentence or warning), is a genetic profile stored in the database?

3. Under what circumstances are the data deleted or the samples destroyed?

4. What techniques are used and what quality-control measure are laid down in each case?

5. Is the recording of data restricted to certain DNA areas or - in view of the fact that these sequences themselves can be used to draw wide-ranging conclusions about other genetic features - are there any bans on compiling personality profiles etc.?

6. What rules are there governing access to the databases by police authorities in other countries?

7. Are there any thoughts on centralizing these databases or bringing them together at a European level? If so, which Institutions of the EU are thinking on these lines?

Answer given by Ms Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 June 1998)

The Commission does not have the detailed information requested by the Honourable Member but it would point out that most of the Member States already have or are about to set up national desoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) databases. It would draw the Honourable Member's attention to current work in the Council following the resolution of 9 June 1997 on the exchange of DNA analysis results ((OJ C 193, 24.6.1997. )), inviting Member States to consider establishing DNA databases.

This work, which aims to facilitate the exchange of analyses and data between Member States, deals mainly with the alignment of methodologies and standardisation of DNA markers. It is carried out with the assistance of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and funding from the STOP programme. The DNA project financed by STOP has already made progress in methodology, standardisation and the interpretation of analyses. An interim report was presented to the Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) on 28-29 May 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (8 April 1998)

Subject: The illogicality of the Community's school milk subsidy programme

The reply given by Commissioner Franz Fischler (E-0124/98FI) to my written question completely missed the key point of my argument. As the reply stresses that the level of subsidy depends on the milk content of products and that less support is provided for semi-skimmed milk than for whole milk, the only possible conclusion is that the programme favours - and encourages consumers to give preference to - high-fat milk products at the expense of low-fat products.

The reply also stresses that the support is intended to reduce the retail price differential between high-fat and low-fat milk products, so that one can only deduce that the Commission does not wish to take account in its subsidy policy of the unhealthy effects of consuming too much fat.

How will the Commission in future correct the principles underlying the school milk subsidy programme so as to cease basing the programme on the precept 'the more fat, the more deserving of support', which makes no sense from the point of view of public health?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 May 1998)

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's conclusion that the differing amounts of aid granted in respect of products covered by the school-milk distribution programme encourage the consumer to favour high-fat milk products. On the contrary, it takes the view that the amounts of aid are already set on the basis of objective criteria which should not influence the consumer's choice of product. Moreover, only the individual consumer is in a position to judge whether - in the light of his/her specific circumstances - a product contains too much fat or not.

In view of the above, the Commission does not at present envisage proposing changes to the criteria for granting this aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (27 July 1998)

Subject: Sheepmeat and lamb imports into the EU

Can the Commission provide figures on the quantities and value of sheepmeat and lamb imported into the EU last year and from which countries these imports originated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1150/98 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (24 April 1998)

Subject: The single market and EU funding

The UK Government has decided not to take part in all available EU funding opportunities in the beef sector. As a result, UK beef farmers find themselves at a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis beef farmers from other Member States whose Governments do participate. This situation has created a major distortion in the successful functioning of the single market.

Firstly, would the Commission please list all available EU funding opportunities in the beef sector and indicate those which have not been taken up by the UK Government?

Secondly, does the UK Government's decision run contrary to the basis of the acquis communautaire which every Member State has an obligation to accept before accessing to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1998)

The Commission is unable to supply an exhaustive list of all Community funding opportunities for the beef sector in the United Kingdom, due to the fact that certain Community instruments, such as structural measures, are not specific to certain sectors and may be applied differently according to national priorities.

In the particular case of agrimonetary compensatory aid in connection with the appreciable revaluations of the Pound Sterling agricultural conversion rate which occurred during 1997, the maximum amount available to all sectors was 610 MECU. From this total, the maximum amount that could be granted to the beef sector was 189 MECU. The British government submitted a request for 95 MECU to the beef sector. This corresponds to the maximum available to the beef sector, since according to the regulatory provisions concerning agrimonetary compensation, the maximum amounts payable are halved in cases such as this where Member States do not wish to grant national contribution.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the net sum to be transferred from the Community budget to the United Kingdom will be substantially below 95 MECU as a result of the operation of the corrective mechanism granted to the United Kingdom in respect of budgetary imbalances by Article 4 of Council Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources ((OJ L 185, 15.7.1988. )).

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 724/97 of 22 April 1997 determining measures and compensation relating to appreciable revaluations that affect farm incomes ((OJ L 108, 25.4.1997. )), establishes that a Member State may grant aids to farmers under certain conditions. The Commission considers that the waiving of a Member State participation in a voluntary aid scheme does not run contrary to the 'acquis communautaire'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/98 by Dietrich Elchlepp (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Observance of EU hygiene regulations at slaughterhouses in Germany and France

Farmers and and the meat industry in Germany fear that competition is being distorted by differing levels of application, implementation and monitoring of EU hygiene regulations in slaughterhouses in the German-French border area of the southern Upper Rhine.

What information does the Commission have on this matter?

In practice, are the EU hygiene regulations implemented equally in both countries and monitored by the national authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (19 May 1998)

The Commission is not aware of significant differences in the manner in which Community meat hygiene legislation is applied in the area to which the Honourable Member refers.

Member States are responsible for ensuring that Community legislation is properly applied in their own territories. The Commission, through the Food and veterinary office, which forms part of Directorate General XXIV for Consumer policy and consumer health protection, monitors the manner in which Member States undertake this responsibility. For this purpose, the Food and veterinary office carries out control and inspection missions to all Member States and a large number of third countries. The concerns expressed by the Honourable Member have been noted and will be borne in mind in the planning of future control and inspection activities by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1785/98 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (11 June 1998)

Subject: Statements by the Austrian Minister for Home Affairs

The Austrian Minister for Home Affairs, Karl Schlögl, recently asked Hungary and the Czech Republic to introduce a visa requirement for Romanian citizens. The Association of the States General of European Students (AEGEE), which has been established in Romania since 1990 and has a network of 17 branches in the country, has expressed its concern, believing that this statement runs counter to the desire for Europe-wide integration and the statements made by European political leaders.

What are the Commission's views on Mr Schlögl's remarks?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (13 July 1998)

It is Commission policy not to comment on public statements by politicians in the Member States.