ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: The role of guidelines in agreeing structural funds programmes, as agreed at the informal Council in Ireland (14-15.11.1996)

What is the Commission's own evaluation of the extent to which guidelines published by the Commission affect actual programmes within the Member States? What process is the Commission undertaking to make such an evaluation? Is it the Commission's intention to include the continuation of such guidelines within its proposed new structural fund programmes? If so, what new consultation will take place about the guidelines, and by what date does the Commission expect to approve them?

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

(6 April 1998)

As indicated in the Commission's document issued on 30 May 1997(1), the guidelines, together with the intermediate evaluations of programmes, would form the basis for adjustments in the framework of the overall mid-term review of the six year programmes 1994-1999.

The Commission's recent proposals for the reform of the structural funds contain specific provision for the Commission to establish Community guideline priorities for each objective. The guidelines would be subject to wide interservice consultation within the Commission and would be issued both before the presentation of plans by the Member States and before the mid-term review of programmes. They would thus constitute a general policy and priority framework for drawing up structural fund programmes and making later adjustments to them.

(1) Priorities for the adjustment of Structural Fund programmes to the end of 1999 - Commission Guidelines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/98

by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Proposals on certain employment relationships

In Official Journal C 40 of 7 February 1998 the Commission announced that it was withdrawing the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on certain employment relationships with regard to distortions of competition, although not all the elements contained in the proposal were to be covered by Community rules.

1. Will the Commission state the reasons that led it to withdraw the above proposal?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to make those elements of the proposal which remain unregulated subject to rules?

3. Does the Commission share the view that, particularly with regard to social protection, Community rules on part-time work, fixed-term employment and temporary work should be sought as a matter of urgency, so as to ensure non-discrimination vis-à-vis permanent full-time employment?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 1998)

1. The proposal concerning distortions of competition was on the table of the Council for more than seven years. It was clear from the discussion at Council level that this proposal had no chance of ever being adopted by the Council.

2. There is still on the table of the Council a proposal for a directive on certain employment relationships with regard to working conditions based on Article 100 of the EC Treaty(1). Social partners have embarked on negotiations on fixed-term contracts as a follow-up of their agreement on part-time.

3. The Commission will await the outcome of the debate on non-standard employment contracts before considering any further action.

(1) OJ C 224, 8.9.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/98

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Equal treatment of citizens of the European Union as employees of businesses within the EU

Schering A.G., which operates in Berlin, Germany, has invited its employees to subscribe to a share issue. The offer was open to employees of the parent company and of its German subsidiaries, but not to employees of subsidiaries working in other EU Member States.

How will the Commission ensure that groups of enterprises - both parent companies and subsidiaries - in the various EU Member States treat all citizens of the Union equally with regard to employee share issues?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The Commission has already for a number of years worked on the general issue of financial participation of employees. In 1991 the Commission published a study on the "Promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results" known as the Pepper I report. On the basis of this report Council Recommendation 92/443/EEC(1) on the subject was adopted in 1992. The Commission undertook to present a report to the Parliament, the Council and the Economic and social committee on the application of the recommendation on the basis of information supplied by the Member States. This report, known as the Pepper II report, was adopted by the Commission in January 1997(2).

In the recently adopted social action programme 1998-2000(3), the Commission has undertaken to launch an initiative to encourage greater employee financial participation in companies by highlighting good practice and identifying obstacles, building on the 1992 Recommendation. Identifying obstacles that multinational companies face when introducing financial participation schemes in general and employee share ownership schemes in particular will be one of the essential aims of this initiative.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.

(2) COM(96) 697 final.

(3) COM(98) 256 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: La Laguna Dogs' Home, Tenerife

Is the Commission aware of the situation in the La Laguna Dogs' Home in Tenerife? Does the Protocol on Animal Welfare, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, give additional scope for the Commission to investigate alleged breaches of animal welfare in such a situation where neither religious rights, cultural traditions nor regional heritage can provide an excuse for failing to respect the welfare requirements of animals?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The animal welfare protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam covers only agriculture, transport, internal market and research.

The welfare of dogs within a dogs home, therefore, falls outside the scope of the protocol and is purely within the competence of the national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Cohesion Fund/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 from the Cohesion Fund? What does the Commission envisage as regards the support to be made available from this fund during the 2000-2006 financial period?

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

(28 May 1998)

To date, the Portuguese authorities have only submitted one project for the region of the Azores for part-financing by the Cohesion Fund. This involves the treatment and disposal of urban waste on the islands of São Miguel, Pico and Terceira. The Commission received this application on 19 March 1998 and is currently considering it.

The Commission is proposing that the Fund be maintained during the next programming period. Since it up to the Member States to propose projects to the Commission for Cohesion Fund assistance, it is not possible to forecast the future support that the Azores will receive from the Cohesion Fund.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1171/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(2 April 1998)

Subject: Sale of the Rome milk marketing board

Is it true that notice of infringement proceedings has been served against Italy and Rome city council over the privatization of the milk marketing board?

Were all procedures followed in connection with the sale of the milk marketing board in order to publicize the sale and guarantee observance of European regulations and compliance with the principle of free competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

The Commission can confirm that it decided on 30 March 1998 to initiate the infringement procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the aid granted by Italy to clear the annual operating debts of the "Centrale de Latte" (milk marketing board). Furthermore, while the Commission is not opposed to the privatisation of this company it does have doubts concerning the conformity with competition rules of certain aid payments which were apparently granted as part of the privatisation procedure.

Under this procedure, the Commission will be inviting the Italian Government to submit comments within a month from the date of notification of its decision. The other Member States and interested third parties will also be invited to submit their observations by notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1067/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Import quota threat on exports of carpets to Russia

Is the Commission aware of fears that the Russian Federation may impose import quotas on carpets from the European Union? If so, when are these quotas likely to be imposed and what is their expected size?

Is the Commission aware that such an import quota would have a detrimental effect even for those manufacturers not presently exporting to Russia?

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

(19 May 1998)

The Commission is indeed aware that the Russian Federation had imposed a unilateral import quota on carpets from the Community, as the Honourable Member notes.

As a result of the Commission's efforts to solve this potentially damaging situation for Community exporters, a textiles agreement was reached on 28 March 1998, under which Russia withdrew with effect from 1 May 1998 its unilateral quota on carpets and undertook to make commercially meaningful initiatives on easing of certification requirements for textile imports from the Community. The Community has also removed its quotas on Russian textile exports with effet from 1 May 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: NUTS II

If per capita GDP at NUTS II level is acceptable for Objective 1 but not for Objective 2 at NUTS III level, why is per capita GDP acceptable for state aids at NUTS III level?

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

(26 May 1998)

Gross domestic product (GDP) is a broad measure of regional prosperity and development and therefore an appropriate indicator for the selection of the least developed objective 1 regions. It is particularly relevant to large regions (nomenclature of territorial statistical units (NUTS) II Level) where commuter flows tend to be limited, so that the GDP generated within the region can be attributed to the resident population.

On both these counts, GDP is an inappropriate indicator for the new objective 2 proposed by the Commission. The areas potentially eligible for this objective are those seriously affected by economic restructuring which is not directly related to their level of prosperity. Such areas experience other problems indicated by the rate of unemployment, the levels of industrial employment, the level and development of activity in agriculture and in the fishing industry and the degree of social exclusion. Objective 2 areas would also typically be significantly smaller than the large less developed regions eligible for objective 1. For smaller areas, the GDP statistic is often a poor representation of the level of prosperity because of the effects of commuter flows. Thus otherwise prosperous residential areas may have low levels of GDP per head of population because the enterprises responsible for wealth creation are located in an adjacent region.

As regards eligibility for state aids, according to the new guidelines, GDP per capita at NUTS III level will not be used for the selection of assisted areas under Article 92, 3c of the EC Treaty but, together with the unemployment rate, will serve to calculate the population ceiling of eligible areas for each Member State. GDP per capita is thus used as a general indicator of the incidence of problem regions in a Member State, while the actual selection of areas would be based on a range of other criteria.

Where GDP per capita is used to decide on assisted areas, i.e. for the least developed areas under Article 92, 3a of the EC Treaty, this decision is again based on data at NUTS II level.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1231/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Reduction of noise pollution in areas around airports

In its resolution A-0183/97(1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy, the European Parliament calls on the Commission "to lay down and standardize obligatory standards for aviation to limit aircraft noise and noise levels in the areas around airports" (para. 29).

The Commission:

1. What measures or initiatives has it taken since then to follow up this request?

2. Does it consider that European obligatory standards to limit noise pollution are the only way to prevent certain regional airports from having a less strict noise pollution policy in order to strengthen their competitive position against the major airports?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

As a follow-up to its Green Paper on future noise policy(2) the Commission is establishing working groups responsible for the technical preparation of future policy in close cooperation with Member States experts. The outcome of this technical assessment should provide the Commission with the necessary elements for identifying the most appropriate initiatives in the areas referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission intends to issue a communication on Air Transport and the Environment by the end of the year. Environmental issues arising in and around airports will be among the matters dealt with in that document.

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

(2) COM(96) 540 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1335/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Development of a MOX (plutonium and uranium) reactor fuel

Relating to the arrangements for the disposal of radioactive wastes and with reference to the other option for handling plutonium, that is the immobilization route for separated plutonium, what funding is available for this route?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 1998)

Within the nuclear fission safety programme's research area on exploring innovative approaches, some theoretical studies have been undertaken on the use of "advanced" mixed oxide fuels (MOX) for transmutation of plutonium. In addition, the Commission has been studying over several years the characterization of MOX fuel and its behaviour. Funding of research and technological development has also been provided in the area of spent fuel immobilization, namely in deep geological repositories. However, there is no Community support provided for investment in the immobilisation of spent fuel or the fabrication of MOX.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1368/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: EC milk subsidy for schools

In view of the Presidency's express wish to see semi-skimmed milk included under the EC school milk subsidy scheme, does the Commission intend to bring forward recommendations to bring the semi-skimmed milk subsidy into line with whole milk levels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission would point that semi-skimmed milk is already eligible for aid under the current arrangements governing the Community school milk scheme.

As for the aid level for this product, the Commission does not intend to propose changes to the Council legislation that lays down the criteria for the fixing of aid levels for the different milk products included under the scheme. The existing legislation does not allow the subsidy for semi-skimmed milk to be brought in line with that for whole milk.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/98

by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Marginalization of European languages

The European Parliament has often reiterated its commitment to a multicultural and multilingual Europe. Nevertheless, attempts are being made to marginalize most of the Community languages, primarily on the pretext of "cutting costs" (which could possibly be achieved in a great many other ways rather than by levelling down European culture).

In which and how many of the Commission's information networks are all the official EU languages used? How does it intend to deal with the major issue of democracy and scrutiny which is arising in the EU in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission information policy is based on local structures, i.e. relays which are grouped into networks in line with their specific characteristics (target public, or location). The Commission information networks use all the official languages of the Union. Naturally relays in a given Member State use the language(s) of that State. There are:

- 65 Info points (IPE) supplying the general public with basic information on the Community and its policies;

- 350 European Documentation Centres (EDC) whose objectives are to assist in consolidating teaching and research into Community matters, give the public (including non-university public) access to information on the Community and its policies and encourage the public to take part in the debate on the Community;

- 200 Euro-libraries which make the information on the Communities' policies accessible to the public;

- 3 large information on Europe centres, one in Paris ("sources d'Europe"), one in Lisbon ("Jacques Delors") and one in Berlin ("Jean Monnet Haus"), whose aim is to supply information to both the general public and target publics; these centres can also provide technical assistance to the various networks established in the countries in question;

- 96 rural information and promotion carrefours, whose task is to give information on the Community to rural communities;

- 233 Euro-info centres (EIC) which give advice and disseminate information on the single market to firms in particular, to small and medium-sized firms and craft industries; the aim is to encourage their integration and broaden their participation in Community activities and programmes and to give them easier access to public contracts;

- 10 cross-border consumer information centres which have been set up to provide specialist advice and information and to show consumers how to defend themselves when they are confronted with cross-border matters or problems.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: EURO 1999

As a result of the Pact for Stability and Growth adopted by the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997, the Member States' medium-term budgetary objective will be to achieve "positions close to balance or in surplus". If the Member States continue their budgetary adjustments in subsequent years, their public finances will be in the best position to tackle the budgetary consequences of a possible downturn in the economy.

But what does the Commission think would be the current situation in Belgium if the Stability Pact had been applied during the period 1992-1997?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The stability and growth pact is constituted by a resolution of the European Council of 7 June 1997(1), by Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies(2), and Council Regulation (EC) 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure2. The pact aims at fiscal discipline in the economic and monetary union (EMU) thus creating the appropriate stability conditions for sustained growth. It provides a powerful system of incentives for a Member State not to incur an excessive deficit and to correct it rapidly if such a situation should occur.

In 1992, Belgium had a general government deficit of 6.9 % of gross domestic product (GDP) and in 1993 the deficit was 7.1 % of GDP. this situation led to a Council decision of 26 September 1994 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Belgium (Article 104c (6) of the EC Treaty). In the period covered by the Honourable Member's question, i.e. 1992 to 1997, Belgium budgetary policy was mainly geared towards convergence, i.e. to correct the excessive deficit situation and thus to meet the convergence criteria on the budgetary position. Moreover, paragraphs 9 and 11 of Article 104c of the EC Treaty, which deal with sanctions, did not apply during stage two of EMU.

(1) OJ C 236, 2.8.1997.

(2) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1239/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Offences against children

In view of the statement made in the report of theUnited Nations Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court that, where committed systematically or on a large scale, any of the following acts: inflicting pain and suffering, extermination, torture, reducing people to slavery, beatings for political, racial, religious or ethical reasons, institutionalized discrimination involving restriction of liberty and the infringement of fundamental human rights, enforced arbitrary deportation of a population, arbitrary imprisonment, illegal detention, leading a person into prostitution and all other forms of sexual violence, and other inhuman acts causing serious damage to physical and mental integrity, health and human dignity, such as mutilation and grievous bodily harm, constitute crimes against humanity.

Will the Commission propose a directive providing that:

1. Organizations which systematically cause suffering to or the death or exploitation of children are equated with all other forms of organized crime ( such as drug trafficking or fraud );

2. Where offences are committed against children, those offences should be deemed to be crimes against humanity;

3. A child's powers of judgement or his or her alleged consent should be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance in classifying the offences committed?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 1998)

The Commission shares the detestation of the Honourable Members of the crimes listed in their question, particularly when such crimes are committed against children.

Within the European Union, competence in the field of criminal law and in particular for the classification of criminal offences lies with the Member States, subject of course to their responsibilities and commitments under international conventions and agreements.

The Commission actively supports the work of the European drugs unit (EDU) in the fight against trafficking in human beings as covered by its mandate under the Joint Action(1) adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 16 December 1996 extending the EDU mandate to trafficking in human beings.

(1) OJ L 342, 31.12.1996.