ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3734/97 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: EU support for film festivals and prizes

Would the Commission supply me with figures for European Union support for film festivals and prizes?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

The declining number of European films shown in commercial cinemas has prompted the Commission to provide support for film festivals in order to promote European films and encourage their circulation between Member States.

The readiness of the festivals to apply European programming criteria has meant that the overall impact of this Community measure has been very positive: from 1992 to 1997, the European content of Community festivals went up by nearly 45% while the programmes of supported events were over 80% European. The 'European film festival coordination system', which has been set up under the Commission's aegis for the purpose of carrying out joint activities to the exclusive advantage of European films and currently takes in some 125 festivals, also bears witness to the success of this measure.

The steadily rising attendances at film festivals (20% a year, resulting in a total audience in the Member States of some 12 million in 1997) and the increasing number of such festivals (more than 600) make these events crucially important vehicles for the promotion of European films. Activities organised by these festivals to promote European films have mushroomed in recent years (competitions, contracts, distribution of prize-winning films).

The festivals are also the main discovery grounds for new talent and virtually the only place where young people can learn an approach to the moving image other than that offered by television. Both locally and regionally, their economic and social impact is considerable as are their implications for employment (50 000 jobs every year).

Since 1993, the Community has provided active support for these events under Budget Item B3-2011 as well as in the shape of calls for proposals. The following amounts have been granted (in ECU):

Support for festivals (Total amounts)

>TABLE>

Support for festivals (Events supported)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3838/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Seismic protection in Greece and the high cost of new projects

Greece is known to be the country most prone to earthquakes in the European Union. Accordingly the new Greek Seismic Protection Regulation (NEAK) drawn up by the Greek Ministry of Regional Planning, Housing

and the Environment introduces doubly stringent standards regarding iron reinforcement in the construction of new housing in Greece, resulting in a 15% increase in costs, which is excessively high for the average Greek.

Has a comprehensive seismologic study been carried out in connection with recent work on the Athens underground railway and the new airport in Spata? Does the Commission intend to create a special Structural Fund reserve earmarked for new public and private projects so that they can be fully guaranteed to withstand earthquakes, given that prevention of disasters is infinitely preferable to measures to remedy the damage they cause in both material and human terms?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1998)

The antiseismic regulations in force in Greece are applied to the study and construction of the Athens underground, the Spata airport, and all other projects in Greece which are part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund or the Cohesion Fund.

The cost of studies and construction under these projects, including the additional cost of applying the antiseismic regulations, is eligible for a contribution from these Funds so there is no need for a special reserve for this purpose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4072/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Nutritional labelling

Does the Commission also agree that at present, inconsistent and confusing nutritional content claims like 'light' and 'low fat' make it difficult for consumers to be able to trust the validity of such claims, whereas these claims could be useful to consumers if they were more tightly controlled? Is the Commission planning to consider the control of these types of claims as part of the forthcoming nutrition labelling review?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4070/97 and E-4072/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission believes that a safe and adequate supply of a great variety of foods is available today to consumers in the Community as a result of a number of Community policies, measures and activities. Correct and consistent information on food labels but also appropriate knowledge by and education of consumers are important elements which will help them to select a diet to suit their individual needs.

Nutritional claims are one important aspect of labelling and the Commission is currently evaluating the comments on this specific issue received in response to the Commission's green paper on food law ((COM(97) 176 final. )) before deciding on any necessary measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: State of progress of the sub-programme on 'General and Technical Education' in the programme on 'Education and Initial Vocational Training' in Greece

It has been reported in the press that the Greek Minister of Education is urging that sub-programme 1 'General and Technical Education', and in particular Measure 1.2 'Uniform Secondary School', in the programme on 'Education and Initial Vocational Training' be completely restructured and that the management of Community funds be transferred to other bodies. Will the Commission say:

1. Has Greece submitted any proposals for the above-mentioned actions in respect of the programmes in question and, if so, what are they?

2. If any such proposals have been submitted, how does it view them?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

1. The ministry of Education has indeed submitted to the monitoring committee of the Education and initial vocational training programme a proposal with a view to strengthening the action and further supporting the integrated lyceum, which was already included in the programme (measure 1.2), and accelerating implementation. The proposals refer to remedial teaching for students of the recently created integrated lyceum, training of teachers and administrative staff, development of libraries, science, computers laboratories, information technologies and mobility programmes, specifically for the lyceum.

2. At its meeting of 3 December 1997, the programme monitoring committee in principle agreed to the modification of sub-programme 1 (general and technical education) to take account of the need to support the integrated lyceum. Moreover, the monitoring committee stressed that the main structure of the sub-programme in question will be maintained. Budgets will be adapted on the basis of the implementation to date, without damaging the current planning. Multifund actions of the adopted programme, like school libraries, information technologies and mobility programmes will be adjusted to give priority to the development of the integrated lyceum. Implementation mechanisms will remain unchanged.

Following the above, the ministry of Education will submit to the monitoring committee, as soon as possible, detailed proposals regarding the implementation of the new actions, as well as the necessary financial information (e.g. budgets, financial tables). On the basis of the detailed proposals, the monitoring committee will then proceed to final decisions.

Consequently, it is premature for the Commission to express its views on the subject, before having the detailed proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4166/97 by Irene Soltwedel-Schäfer (V) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: British beef

When was the EU ban on the export of British beef transposed into national (British) law in the form of implementing provisions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 February 1998)

Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) as amended by Commission Decision 96/362/EC of 11 June 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )) imposed export prohibitions on United Kingdom bovine animals and bovine meat and products derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom. These Decisions were initially applied by the United Kingdom authorities by a mixture of legislation, regulation and administrative measures.

Following inspections by veterinary inspectors it appeared that in some respects the national measures applying the ban were incomplete.

The Commission consequently put pressure on the United Kingdom government resulting in the adoption by the latter during August 1997 of more comprehensive national rules followed up during the following month by detailed circulars governing in particular the implementation of the new legislation at ports.

Commission inspections have also discovered certain inadequacies in the levels of official controls at United Kingdom meat plants and cold stores which could have implications for enforcement of the export ban. An infringement procedure has been opened against the United Kingdom in respect of this aspect.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: Growth hormones

The following questions are asked in relation to the hormone conflict with the USA:

1. What arguments did the EU bring with it to the appeal proceedings?

2. What is the substance of the scientific opinions submitted by the EU and with whom do they originate?

3. What arguments were advanced by which two of the scientists called by the WTO in support of the EU expert opinions?

4. What arguments were advanced by which three of the scientists called by the WTO in support of the EU expert opinions?

5. With what arguments did the panel members support their decisions for or against this or that opinion?

6. To what extent did the arbitration committee interpret SPS measures incorrectly?

7. What point is there in subjecting imports to the same health requirements as internal products when no health considerations apply under WTO rules?

8. To what extent can the SPS convention be expected to provide WTO treaty partners with opportunities to improve on existing international food standards?

Answer (11 May 1998)

Under the EC Treaty, the Commission is responsible in this instance for representing the European Community in the WTO negotiations and therefore before the Panel and its Appellate Body.

The Honourable Member's questions should therefore be addressed to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4076/97 by Marie-France Stirbois (NI) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Assistance to job creators

Can the Commission supply a comparative analysis of the assistance and social security contribution exemptions which the various Member States make available to unemployed persons wishing to set up companies or work on a freelance basis?

In its opinion, what impact do such heterogeneous arrangements have on competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

With regard to the aid schemes established by Member States to assist in the creation of self-employed activities, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its annual publications entitled 'Employment Observatory. Tableau de Bord. Follow-up to the conclusions of the Essen European Council on employment policies'.

With regard to the Commission position on the impact of these schemes on competition, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the documents it has published on this subject, namely the 'Notice on monitoring of State aid and reduction of labour costs' ((OJ C 1, 3.1.1997. )) and the 'Guidelines on aid to employment' ((OJ C 334, 12.12.1995. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4159/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Failure of a TACIS project in Russia

1. The Netherlands and its consultants Koninklijke Ahold NV were taken to court on 4 December 1997 by the Russian partner Tonar for payment of Fl. 9 million damages for the unlawful termination of a TACIS aid programme (TAGOS) initiated by the EU. According to the ruling of the Amsterdam Court the termination of the aid programme was unlawful. Both the Netherlands state and Koninklijke Ahold N.V. refuse to settle the damages in a correct manner and are forcing the Russian partner into a costly, unnecessary and lengthy procedure. Is the Commission aware that the case, which is expected to last several years - whether or not there is a positive or negative result for the plaintiffs - will have an adverse effect on future subsidy programmes and the mutual trust and stability in relations with Eastern Europe. Does the Commission not consider that there is gross negligence on the part of Koninklijke Ahold N.V., when, despite the clear indication by the Amsterdam court that Koninklijke Ahold N.V. is liable for damages, that company and the Netherlands state refuse to hold any proper discussions with the injured party, in this case the Russian partner Tonar?

2. The study commissioned by the EU and carried out by Koninklijke Ahold N.V., shows that the establishment of a food wholesale business, in this case a distribution centre, is the key priority. Koninklijke Ahold made this conclusion as a priority in its August 1992 report. Does the Commission not find it strange that the country providing assistance in the framework of the TACIS aid programme, in this case the Netherlands, refuses to meet the key wishes of the country receiving assistance, in this case Russia, and also that the agreements made between the Netherlands and Russia have consistently not been fulfilled, even after it was shown that the Russians had fully satisfied all conditions set by the European Union and the Netherlands Ministry for Economic Affairs?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 February 1998)

The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3887/97 ((See page 30. )).

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member, which is the subject of litigation between Russian and Dutch parties, was funded by the Dutch government. It did not involve any Tacis funding. Therefore, the Commission cannot intervene in this matter.

The Commission strives to ensure synergy between Tacis and the technical assistance programmes of the Member States. This does, however, not mean that the Commission can influence the implementation, or set conditions for those programmes of the Member States, as is implied in the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4170/97 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Specific SME representation in the European-level Social Dialogue

Under the Maastricht Treaty certain social legislation, such as regulations in the workplace, can be set by a dialogue between European-level partners.

Will small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have specific representation in the European-level Social Dialogue? What can the Commission do to support the claim for specific SME representation in the Social Dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 March 1998)

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) are represented by a number of organisations at European level. They are represented in the social dialogue by various organisations including, for example, the European Union of crafts and small and medium-sized enterprises (UEAPME), the Union of industrial and employers confederations of Europe (UNICE) and Eurocommerce. They are members of certain advisory committees and the standing committee of employment, and they are formally consulted on legislative proposals in accordance with Article 3 of the agreement on social policy annexed to the Treaty on European Union.

SMEs are also represented in the sectorial joint committees and informal working groups, for example, in the commerce, agricultural and fishing sectors by employers organisations, often representing exclusively SMEs.

Negotiation of agreements is another aspect of the social dialogue at European level. Participation in these negotiations is based on principles of autonomy and mutual recognition of the negotiating parties. Currently, the two formal agreements adopted under the social Protocol were negotiated by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC. The Commission has nevertheless expressed repeatedly its wish to see the social partners showing a spirit of dialogue and of openness in order to seek among themselves the methods allowing the broadest possible acceptation of the outcome of the agreements and consultation. The Commission will continue to press Social partners to do this. The Commission is also engaged in carrying out a study of the representativity of Socila partners, whose results will become available in late 1998.

The Commission is currently preparing a communication which follows an extensive hearing of all involved parties through the consultative 1996 Commission communication on development of the social dialogue at Community level ((COM(96) 448. )). The new communication will, while respecting the autonomy of the social partners, set forth the means the Commission intends to use to adapt and promote social dialogue in the future. The aim is to provide the tools for an even more constructive dialogue at European level where all interests, including those of SMEs, can be taken into account in a way that refelcts their importance with regard to employment and job creation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4155/97 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Progress in establishing a Greek land registry

Written Question P-3617/97 ((OJ C 158, 25.5.1998. )) to the Commission requests certain information concerning progress in drawing up a Greek land registry. In its answer, the Commission gave clear information concerning the amount of funding used (to date 11% or Dr 5.5 billion and, by the end of the year, 22% or DR 11 billion) together with the reductions in the budget appropriations (about Dr 11 billion or one fifth of the funding provided by the Community) and the expected date of completion (in about 15 years).

However, the Commission did not indicate the volume of funding disbursed to date or progress achieved as a result in relation to the project as a whole.

As far as I know, only a few villages in Greece have registered to date. In view of this, can the Commission indicate what portion of Greek territory will have been registered by the end of 1997 using the DR 11 billion of Community funding, together with national funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 February 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, according to information it has on progress in drawing up a Greek land register, the following work has been carried out to date:

(a) 52 % of the registration of the 66 OTAs (municipal districts) covered by the first award of contracts (budget: ECU 27.3 million, area: 2.3 million stremata (1 hectare = 10 stremata), completion expected at the end of 1998), and

(b) 20% registration of the 54 OTAs covered by the second award of contracts (budget ECU 14 million, area 1.1 million stremata, completion expected at the end of 1999).

Work is currently underway on a total of 3.4 million stremata (40% of the 8.5 million stremata covered by the second Community support framework (CSF-II)). The Honourable Member is reminded that Greece covers a total of 132 million stremata and that it will take approximately 15 years to complete the Greek land register.

Tenders for the third and final award of contracts covered by CSF-II are currently being examined. A total budget of ECU 83.3 million (5 million stremata) is involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Clarification of the limits of the Argentinian EEZ

The reason for the seizure of the Community vessel Arpón by the Argentinian authorities whilst it was fishing in international waters near the Argentinian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) was the fact that the zone has been imprecisely demarcated by the Argentinians, and this has given rise to a lengthy, costly and unwelcome conflict.

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken or is considering taking to ensure that the exact limits of the EEZ in Argentinian waters are clearly demarcated and hence provide the necessary security for the Community vessels fishing in international waters near that zone?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (26 January 1998)

On 16 September 1996, Argentina lodged the geographical details of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with the United Nations in accordance with Article 75 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Community has a primary interest in ensuring compliance with the international law of the sea. However, it has no authority to resolve disputes concerning the boundaries of that exclusive economic zone.

As the Honourable Member knows, the European Community and Argentina are involved in a joint project to create a multilateral system of cooperation in managing and protecting the resources of the south-west Atlantic. The Commission will raise the problem in this context, at the most appropriate time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4178/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Cohesion policy and culture

Article 128(4) of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the Treaty.

Can the Commission say what monitoring and control measures have been adopted in this connection, especially in the context of Community structural policy?

Can the Commission say to what extent this aspect will be taken into account in the forthcoming reform of the Structural Funds?

What strategy, objectives and guidelines will accompany this reform with regard to the impact of the cultural sector on cohesion policy?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 March 1998)

The Commission takes account of the cultural factor during negotiation and approval of the programming documents. For example, the Commission made explicit reference to culture in its guidelines to the Member States for the new objective 2 programmes (1997-1999).

However, the definition of programme priorities is a matter for the regional and local authorities concerned. For example, the regions themselves decide whether and in what form they will give priority to integration of culture within their programmes. The Commission may not impose any type of 'quota' as regards culture as this would conflict with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Commission considers culture as an important area of potential job creation to be included in the future programmes. At the same time the Commission does not consider it necessary to include culture explicitly as a specific eligible action in the new regulations because it is already covered by the existing scope.

The link with regional development and job creation will remain a necessary condition for assistance aimed at economic and social cohesion.