ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Activities of insurance intermediaries

Neither the 1976 directive on the activities of insurance brokers and intermediaries, nor the 1991 recommendation on insurance intermediaries led to the effective regulation of the activities of this type of operator. Unless action is taken swiftly, the creation of a single market in the insurance sector will remain an illusion, both for consumers and for the industry.

Will the Commission adopt an EU directive without delay harmonizing existing legislation in the different Member States so that any insurance intermediary, operating legally in his or her country of origin, can easily operate in another EU Member State, as is the case for insurance companies (which benefit from the single licence system)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

Given the need for proper professional advice and the importance of purchasing correct insurance cover, the Commission has always recognised the valuable role played by insurance intermediaries in the distribution of insurance products in the Member States.

The Honourable Member is correct to point out that the Council Directive 77/921/EEC of 13 December 1997 on measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of the activities of insurance agents and brokers (ex ISIC Groups 630), and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those activities ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) and the Recommendation 92/48/EEC on insurance intermediaries ((OJ L 19, 28.1.1992. )) regulate the activities of insurance intermediaries in the single market. Although the latter measure, as a recommendation, has no binding character on Member States, at the time of its adoption the Commission indicated that, after the expiry of the three year period foreseen in the recommendation, it would examine the progress of Member States in bringing their national legislation into line with the recommendation. If such progress were insufficient the Commission would consider whether binding measures were required.

The Commission is aware of the difficulties sometimes encountered by insurance intermediaries when operating on a cross-border basis. It has therefore decided to address the issues. In the Commission communication ((Communication from Mr Monti and Mrs Bonino to the Commission 'Financial services: Enhancing consumer confidence'. The be adopted on 25 June 1997, COM(97). )) 'Financial services: enhancing consumer confidence', the Commission specifically undertakes to review the 1976 Directive and the extent of implementation of the principles set out in the 1991 Recommendation, before the middle of 1998. The Commission will consider whether further steps are needed, including the possibility of widening the scope of the Directive in respect of the access and exercise of the profession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The elderly and families

With regard to budget heading B3-4104: Measures for the elderly and families, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Holidaying regional officials

Emma Bonino has stated that training weekends have been held in Brussels to improve regional officials' knowledge of structural fund procedures. I must point out that the Italian regions are the only ones which send different people each time, as if it what was on offer was a holiday prize rather than a work opportunity.

Whatever it may think of such statements, will the Commission state what regions the holidaying officials come from, and will Commissioner Bonino publish the names of the persons concerned?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to training courses organised within the Commission for national civil servants involved in the management of the Structural Funds.

These Commission-run courses are co-financed by the European Social Fund and are intended primarily for national civil servants responsible for the Objective 1 Structural Funds (measures for Italy's Mezzogiorno).

They offer civil servants a good opportunity to gain more insight into various aspects of the management of Community resources.

The Commission does not therefore feel that it is necessary to publish the lists of participants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Consumer policy

With regard to budget heading B5-102: Consumer information, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Environmental Technology Forum

When does the Commission propose to set up this forum which was called for by Parliament as long ago as 1994? What obstacles are causing delay?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

The Commission refers to its previous replies to the Honourable Member's written questions on the same subject E-956/97 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996. )) and E-3672/96 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997. )), where it explained what has been undertaken on the issue of environmental technologies and job creation. The Commission is currently preparing a communication on environment and employment, and organized, together with the Parliament, a conference on this issue on 26-27 May 1997. The communication will deal with policy aspects (how to stimulate clean or green investments and the creation of jobs) as well as with technical aspects (how to assess and disseminate data on clean and best available technologies, and best practices).

For the moment the Commission is not convinced that the creation of a new forum, as proposed by the Parliament, would be the most efficient way of stimulating environmental technologies and job creation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Drugs

With regard to budget heading B3-4302: Health aspects of drug abuse, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2344/97 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Expert and advisory groups

Would the Commission please inform Parliament of the exact way in which juries were selected for the following programmes:

- Media;

- Kaleidoscope;

- Raphael (pilot);

- Arianne (pilot).

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1997)

The groups of experts responsible for examining applications for financing under these programmes and pilot projects work solely in an advisory capacity and take no actual financing decisions. After obtaining the experts' opinions on the quality of the proposals submitted to it, it is for the Commission to prepare the list of projects to which it will grant Community support.

The criteria for selecting experts are competence and experience in the professional areas (artistic and technical) covered by the proposals for examination, the requisite language knowledge, preferably work experience in an international multidisciplinary environment and availability during the period the proposals are assessed.

In order to appoint experts, the Commission can consult lists of experts proposed by national authorities. Their profile must meet the general criteria listed above. The Commission can also call directly on experts who have gained an international reputation in their field (for example, on the basis of work or cooperation with Europe, Unesco, or specialised bodies such as Iccrom or ICOM).

The Commission ensures that there is no conflict of interest between the experts and the proposals they study and maintains a balance between expertise and nationalities in the groups.

It also sees to it that the members of the groups of experts are renewed. However, to secure continuity in the work under certain programmes, membership of the groups is renewed only partially each year.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2634/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Single market

Can the Commission say what point has been reached in the inquiry it is carrying out into the alleged abuse of a dominant position on the manufacture tobacco market by the multinational Philip Morris and the Italian financial authorities?

Has the inquiry identified the mechanism which has so far undermined attempts to compete with the multinational, which now seems to account for 55% of the Italian market? Is there total freedom and competition in Italy, enabling any European manufacturer to sell products without restrictions being caused by exclusive sales outlets?

Finally, can the Commission say how long it will take to complete the investigations?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The Commission has initiated proceedings, pursuant to Regulation No 17/62 implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ((OJ 13, 21.2.1962. )), in order to ascertain whether certain practices pursued by the Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato ('AAMS') on the Italian cigarette market constitute abuse of a dominant position under Article 86 of the EC Treaty. The proceedings relate in particular to the obstacles created by the AAMS to market access by foreign cigarettes.

As part of the proceedings, the Commission sent a statement of objections to the AAMS. The AAMS replied in writing to the statement of objections and, subsequently, put its case orally at a hearing held in July 1997. The Commission is currently examining the arguments put forward at the hearing.

Since the proceedings have not yet been concluded, the Commission cannot at present answer the other questions put by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2228/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Cofinancing of refugee reception centres in Greece

The Greek Government has adopted a law committing itself to set up reception and temporary-stay centres for refugees who enter Greece by a variety of means.

Is the setting up of such centres eligible for European Union cofinancing? From which programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The Honourable Member is certainly aware that the Parliament has created a new budget line in 1997 containing 3.75 MECU in the reserve, which is mainly intended to cover pilot projects on the reception of asylum seekers and displaced people.

Since this is a new budget line, and there has not previously been any concrete action by the Community in this field, the Commission intends to proceed by means of pilot projects. Following the Article K.8 agreement and the release by the Parliament of 2.25 MECU from the reserve, the way is open for Member States, international organisations and non-governmental organisations to submit pilot projects in the field of the reception of asylum seekers and displaced people. The Commission has invited Member States to submit concrete projects in these areas.

The setting up of reception centres for asylum seekers and displaced people in Greece may, under certain conditions, be eligible for Community cofinancing. It should be clearly framed as a pilot project, including a proper evaluation mechanism. Particular attention will be given to the establishment of new reception infrastructures to meet the immediate needs of displaced people in situations of mass influx. Furthermore, the establishment of such a reception centre should be intended to implement the instruments adopted by the Council in the fields of asylum procedures and unaccompanied minors (1).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Population decline in the European Union and incentives by the Commission

A number of EU countries are currently experiencing a marked decline in their population, a situation that is particularly worrying in Greece, where the population pyramid has been completely inverted. Given that the existence of an ageing population has a direct bearing on the security and integrity of each country and that at present the EU does not seem very inclined to make it clear that any threat or attack against the territory of one Member State will produce an immediate response from the others, it is clear that each individual country must take sole responsibility for its own survival, and this depends directly on an increase in birth rates.

Will the Commission say whether it intends to introduce programmes to provide immediate financial assistance for those Members States which are experiencing serious difficulties as a result of low birth rates or whether there are other possibilities of providing incentives to increase birth rates in the EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

The Commission is aware of the current decline in population and of its implications. There has been a particularly sharp decrease in the birth rate in the Mediterranean region, including Greece. This demographic trend has been mentioned in the recent Commission 1997 report on the demographic situation in the European Union ((COM(97) 361. )).

The provision of incentives to combat low birth rates is a matter for the Member States. Even if a number of initiatives have been taken in order to raise public awareness of this issue, such as recommendations in a number of areas which may be seen as related to the demographic trend, the Commission does not intend to go further, given its limited role in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/97 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: CRDS levied on Dutch pensioners living in France

On 16 October 1996 the Commission decided to instigate infringement proceedings against France for imposing the 'Contribution au Remboursement de la Dette Sociale' (CRDS) on Dutch pensioners resident in France who pay social premiums in the Netherlands in respect of their pensions.

1. Is the CRDS premium to be regarded as a tax on income which has to be paid in France pursuant to an agreement between France and the Netherlands, or as a social security premium which, in principle, is levied on Dutch citizens only in the Netherlands in respect of income from pensions?

2. What stage have the infringement proceedings reached, and what action is the Commission taking to compel France to comply with European legislation?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that it is of the opinion, from the point of view of Community law and more particularly Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. )), that the 'contribution au remboursement de la dette sociale' (CRDS) must be regarded as a social contribution and therefore subject to that Regulation. Consequently, in the Commission's opinion, the CRDS cannot be levied on the income from activity or substitute income of workers resident in France but subject, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, to the social security legislation of another Member State.

In the context of the infringement proceedings initiated against France in this matter, the Commission delivered its reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty in July 1997, having found the French government's reply to the letter of formal notice of 6 December 1996 to be unsatisfactory.

On the basis of the government's reply to the reasoned opinion, the Commission will consider whether or not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1547/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon 20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning. As the Commission was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76. )) on the same subject, I would ask the Council to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

When will the burden of proof at last be reversed throughout Europe where injury is suffered as a result of the marketing of these and similarly dangerous products, the dubious benefit of which bears no relation to the risk they entail?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1533/97, E-1535/97, E-1537/97, E-1539/97, E-1541/97, E-1543/97, E-1545/97 and E-1547/97 (25 September 1997)

The Council has to date not received any proposal from the Commission directly concerning the multiple problems raised by the Honourable Member. However, the Council would draw the Member's attention to the fact that at this stage there is not yet any Community harmonization of the status of these products which are treated, depending on the evaluation of Member States, in particular as medicinal or biocidal products. Bearing this in mind, as regards certain aspects of the questions put by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that:

- following the 19th adaptation to technical and scientific progress ((OJ L 258, 11.10.1993, p. 29.)) of Annex 1 to Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the Annex lists FENTHION under No 015-048-00-8 in the index ((OJ L 258A, 16.10.1993, p. 212.));

- under the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a future Directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market ((Common position of the Council of 20.12.1996, OJ C 69, 5.3.1997, p. 13.)), Annex V to which covers antiparasitics, these products may be marketed only after their active substances have been entered on a positive Community list and after a detailed assessment of the risks they might entail notably for human health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2078/97 by Mair Morgan (PSE) to the Commission (19 June 1997)

Subject: Expert groups

As each DG appears to set different rules for providing information on expert and advisory groups, will the Commission introduce guidelines to enable a coherent, open and transparent policy to be adopted in every DG?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The provision of information on expert and advisory groups referred to by the honourable Member is not a matter for the Commission, being currently governed by the following inter-institutional agreements or undertakings given by the Commission to Parliament:

- the Plumb-Delors agreement on informing Parliament of draft decisions regarding legislative acts referred, for an opinion, to committees assisting the Commission in fulfilling its executive responsibilities;

- the Klepsch-Millan agreement, setting up a code of conduct for the Commission's implementation of structural policy;

- the 'modus vivendi' concluded by Parliament, the Council and the Commission on measures implementing acts adopted under the procedure set out in Article 189b of the EC Treaty;

- the undertaking given by the Commission to Parliament's Committee on Budgets in September 1996 regarding the transparency of work carried out by committees.

These agreements and undertakings apply to all Commission departments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-5046 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 5 May 1997 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 28. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.