ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1110/98 by Otto von Habsburg (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Cancellation of the troika's visit to Zagreb

The planned visit by the President of the Council, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, to Zagreb on 5 March 1998 was cancelled suddenly. The visit of a second rank team, described as a substitute, was also cancelled as President Tudjman, for his part, was not prepared to receive the people proposed, following the unexpected cancellation by the President of the Council, although he delegated a group of members of the Croatian government of similar rank, including its Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to do so.

What valid reasons were there for the cancellation of the Council President's visit to the Head of State of a friendly government?

Does the Council intend to isolate Croatia, at a time when numerous ministers are going to Belgrade to visit Mr Milosevic?

Is this a manoeuvre to compel Croatia, which has traditionally been a state oriented towards the West, to belong to the Balkans, which is evidently the plan of certain leading officials in the Commission?

Answer (6 July 1998)

The President of the Council was obliged to cancel his planned visit to Zagreb, at short notice, in order to be able to travel to Belgrade to present the Union's position on the situation in Kosovo to President Milosevic. The Croatian authorities were fully informed of the reason.

The Council would welcome concrete action by Croatia, particularly to bring about the return of refugees, in accordance with its international obligations.

The Council's position as regards Croatia's European aspirations is governed by the regional approach and the policy of conditionality.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0964/98 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: SRM BAN

Does the Commission consider that the proposed regionalization of the rules relating to SRMs are compatible with the basic principles of a single market set out, inter alia, in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaties? To what extent would such rules provide effective consumer protection, given the impossibility of monitoring the proposed measures?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0282/98 during question time at Parliament's March II 1998 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (March 1998). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1089/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Council (6 April 1998)

Subject: Abolition of Intra-EU duty free

At the meeting of the Transport Council on 17 March 1998, a document was circulated calling for an economic impact study on the effects of this abolition to be carried out. In the ensuing discussion, the majority of Transport Ministers who spoke were in favour of conducting such a study.

Will a similar discussion now be held by the Ecofin Council?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

The decision to abolish the tax- and duty-free sales to intra-community travellers on 30 June 1999 was taken unanimously by the Economy and Finance (Ecofin) Council in 1991. Since then, the issue of whether the Council should nevertheless call on the Commission to conduct a study on the impact of the abolition has been discussed several times by the Council. The issue was lastly examined at the Ecofin Council meeting on 19 May 1998. It is clear from those discussions that there is no consensus among Finance Ministers for reopening the decision taken in 1991, and for calling on the Commission to produce such a study. The Commission is, however, prepared to clarify in a working document the instruments available to Member States for addressing the consequences of the abolition of intra-EU tax- and duty-free sales on 30 June 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Freedom of movement in the EU to acquire medical specialization

Directive 93/16 ((OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1. )) has created difficulties for people wishing to acquire a medical specialistion in the Member States. Before the Directive entered into force (April 1993) it was possible to recognise in Greece a qualification awarded in Austria, for example, and to grant doctors authorization to practise the profession in order to acquire a specialist field in Greece. Once the Directive entered into force, however, this provision was set aside. While the equivalence of diplomas is recognised, therefore, no authoristion is granted to practise the profession, which must be obtained in the country of study, while the criteria vary according to the national legislation in each country. These provisions create insurmountable problems for anyone who has studied in one Member State and wishes to acquire a specialist field in another.

1. For students enrolled at EU universities before the adoption of Directive 93/16, will the arrangements previously in place apply for a transitional period?

2. Given that diplomas awarded in the EU are equivalent, can provision be made to allow authorization to practise the profession to be obtained from the country in which the doctor intends to work rather than, mandatorily, from the country in which his/her diploma was awarded?

3. Provided the diplomas are equivalent, should it not be possible to acquire a specialist field in a Member State other than the one in which the diploma was awarded, since specialization is a part of medical training?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/98 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Exports of live animals

On 18 December 1997, the Council agreed to amend Regulation (EC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal. Amendments to the conditions under which live animals may be exported to third countries include the introduction of controls involving veterinary inspections at third-country entry points. Having decided deliberately to exclude animal welfare groups from being authorisd to carry out such checks, even though they have been the only organizations prepared to expose cruel treatment of exported animals, will the Council say what procedures have been introduced to enforce the requirements of the amended Regulation and how many veterinary inspectors are to be employed for this task?

Answer (29 June 1998)

On 18 December 1997, having consulted the European Parliament, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2634/97 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1997, p. 13. )) which amends Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 to make the payment of the refund for exports of live animals subject to compliance with the provisions on animal welfare.

Article 13(12) of the Regulation thus amended stipulates that it is for the Commission, using the Management Committee procedure, to determine the detailed rules of application for ensuring that the new requirements are monitored satisfactorily, especially in third countries.

A more detailed reply to the Honourable Member's questions will therefore be obtained from the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/98 by Eolo Parodi (PPE) and Guido Viceconte (PPE) to the Council (28 April 1998)

Subject: High-speed and high-capacity railway lines in Italy

Despite the fact that decisions on 14 priority trans-European projects in the transport sector were taken some time ago, work has not yet started in Italy on the upgrading and quadrupling of tracks on the Turin-Milan-Genoa-Venice section of line. If this serious standstill persists, Italy would risk being cut off from the East-West axis, which might be shifted beyond Italy's borders to north of the Alps, cutting Italy off from the rest of Europe, the process of integration and the single market.

1. What is the Council's opinion of Italy's rail infrastructure and the standstill on the priority project for the Turin-Milan-Genoa-Venice high-speed high-capacity railway line?

2. Does it not consider it crucial that the next transport Council (or next European Council) should review progress in implementing the 14 priority projects?

3. What practical steps will it adopt to ensure that Italy complies fully with the transport parameters and priority projects agreed at Essen?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

1. Article 19 of Decision No 1692/96/EC ((OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1 & Corrigendum (OJ L 15, 17.1.1997, p. 1). )) of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network provides that: 'Annex III contains, by way of indication, the projects identified in Annexes I and II and in other provisions of this Decision to which the Essen European Council attributed particular importance'. In the said Annex III, setting out the list of fourteen projects chosen by the Essen European Council on 9 and 10 December 1994, project No 6 reads as follows:

'High-speed train/combined transport: France-Italy

Lyons-Turin

Turin-Milan-Venice-Trieste'.

It should also be noted that Article 18(3) of that Decision provides that: 'The Commission shall report every two years to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the guidelines described in this Decision.'

The report in question is expected in the autumn of 1998.

2. The Brussels European Council in December 1993 asked the Commission to submit to it each year a report on progress being made on the trans-European networks. The 1997 report will be found in document COM(97) 654 final.

3. It is for the Commission to monitor the progress of the trans-European networks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/98 by Rolf Berend (PPE) to the Council (3 April 1998)

Subject: Funding of Weimar's reign as European City of Culture in 1999

In 1999, Weimar in Thuringia will be the European City of Culture. To date, the City of Culture scheme has been financed through the Kaleidoscope programme. Weimar will be an exception in that the Kaleidoscope programme finishes in December 1998. It is uncertain how Weimar's reign as European City of Culture will be funded. The City of Weimar and the Land of Thuringia need clarification of the financing arrangements soon.

Will Weimar's reign as European City of Culture be financed as part of a pilot project and, if so, how, and how much funding will be allocated? Or is it planned in this case to extend the Kaleidoscope programme on a one-off basis?

When can a final decision be expected?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply that the Commission gave on 14 May to his question on the same subject (Written Question E-1018/98).

In its reply the Commission said that it was planning to continue in 1999 the financial support traditionally granted by the Community to the 'European City of Culture' project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/98 by Frederik Willockx (PSE) and Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: Unlawful practices in connection with applications for subsidies

We have recently been receiving an increasing number of enquiries from all kinds of institutions and organizations in connection with practices employed by European Business Services.

That undertaking, which has offices in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, presents itself as a consultant in matters connected with national and European subsidies. It charges BEF 20 000 (excluding VAT) for its services, which is refunded to the client if no subsidy is granted within six months. If a subsidy is actually granted, the client must pay 10% thereof to EBS.

Claiming a proportion of subsidies granted is in total breach of all Community rules.We have been informed that UCLAF has been notified about these practices. Can the Commission say how the inquiry into this matter is progressing and what measures it is planning to take?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1998)

The unit on Coordination of fraud prevention (UCLAF)is currently conducting enquiries in Belgium with regard to subsidies granted by the Community. It is too early at this stage to draw any conclusions, in particular concerning the practices described by the Honourable Member. The Parliament, and more precisely its budgetary control committee, will be kept informed, according to the procedures recently proposed to that committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/98 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Submission of the Fourth Report of the Standing Working Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials in the EU

When does the Commission intend to submit the Fourth Report of the Standing Working Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials in the European Union to Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Economic and Social Committee respectively? How does DG XVII determine the composition of the working group? How many experts from non-governmental environment groups are members of the working group, and what consultations does the working group have with non-governmental environment groups and research institutes as part of its work?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (27 March 1998)

A draft communication covering the fourth report of the standing working group on safe transport of radioactive material will be submitted shortly to the Commission for adoption and distribution to the institutions.

The composition of the working group is based on the resolution of the Parliament of 22 January 1982 ((OJ C 40, 15.2.1982. )) which 'urges the Commission to create a special working party for the transport of radioactive substances and radioactive waste, consisting of representatives of the Commission and national experts'. The Commission undertook, subsequently, to implement the request of the Parliament and called upon the Member States to designate their national experts in the group.

All designated experts are from the side of the competent authorities and their technical support organisations. None are from non governmental organizations (NGOs). Nevertheless, concerns expressed by NGOs have been submitted to the standing working group experts for consideration.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0632/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 1998)

Subject: Export of live cattle from the EU to third countries

Further to Dr Fischler's answer to Written Question E-3253/97 ((OJ C 134, 30.4.1998, p. 127.)) given on behalf of the Commission on 7 November 1997, could the Commission now say:

1. How many live cattle were exported from the EU to third countries in 1997?

2. How many live cattle were exported from each individual EU Member State to each individual importing third country in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997?

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

1. The final figure for 1997 is not yet available. However, an estimate based on licence applications indicates that the Community exported 271 483 live animals with export refunds.

2. In 1996 the Community exported 497 491 live animals. 79% of the Community exports went to Lebanon (134 686 animals), Egypt (112 339 animals) Turkey (109 407 animals) and Libya (38 346 animals).

The main Community exporters of live animals are Germany (180 186 animals), Ireland (144 052 animals) and France (92 869 animals) with 84% of the Community exports.

The figures for exports in 1996, showing how many live cattle were exported from each individual Member State to each individual third country, are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0154/98 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Tobacco production in Andorra

How much does the EU pay out in aid for unprofitable and unhealthy tobacco production in Andorra?

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

Since Andorra is not a Member State, its tobacco production is not covered by the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco and therefore receives no Community aid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1327/98 by Rolf Berend (PPE) to the Council (28 April 1998)

Subject: Mutual recognition of teaching diplomas in the EU

Is a German teaching diploma recognised as a full qualification in the EU and are the holders of such diplomas entitled to work as teachers in other EU Member States?

Does this also apply to teachers working in the new German Federal Länder who acquired their diplomas in the former GDR and have decades of practical experience to draw on?

Answer (13/14 July 1998)

Several legal instruments concerning the professional recognition of diplomas have been adopted at Community level in order to facilitate effective exercise of freedom of movement as enshrined in the EC Treaty.

Since, in accordance with Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the Commission ensures that the provisions adopted by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied, the Council would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's reply to Written Question No 1326/98 by the Honourable Member on the same subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (10 March 1998)

Subject: Imprisonment of a Kurdish leader in Turkey

On 13 January, Hamdi Turanli, chairman of the Democratic party of southern Kurdistan (PDK) was arrested by the Turkish authorities and imprisoned in Ankara. Mr Turanli is facing a sentence of 22 years in prison and he is suffering from cancer which requires constant medical surveillance.

On 16 January, Amnesty International called for the release of Mr Turanli, while the German Foreign Minister, Mr Kinkel, intervened (through the German Embassy in Ankara) to secure the release of the Kurdish leader, who also holds German in addition to Turkish citizenship.

What is the Commission's formal position in regard to this matter? How does it propose to intercede with the Turkish authorities to secure the release of this Kurdish freedom-fighter, who is suffering from cancer, and put an end to the inhuman terrorization of the Kurds living on Turkish territory?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1998)

The Commission is following the case of Mr Turanli. He was released provisionally on 26 February 1998.

In all its dealings with the Turkish authorities the Commission emphasises the need to improve the human rights situation and continue the democratisation process in Turkey. Despite Ankara's decision to suspend all political dialogue with the Community, the Commission intends to continue to stress this point.

As regards the situation in south-eastern Turkey in particular, the Commission has repeatedly pointed out the need to find a non-military solution to the problem and to ensure that measures to combat terrorism remain compatible with the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Commission also intends to contribute to the socio-economic development of the region by financing projects under the MEDA programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/98 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Imports and exports of agricultural products between the EU and the central and eastern European countries

For the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, can the Commission indicate what quantities of milk, meat, cereals and potatoes entered the EU duty free or at preferential rates from individual central and eastern European countries?

For the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, can the Commission indicate what quantities of milk, meat, cereals and potatoes were exported by the EU to individual central and eastern European countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/98 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1998)

Subject: Prescribed Quantity systems

Which Member States have a Prescribed Quantity system which has been investigated, and why did the Commission feel that the existence of a PQ system in the British break market posed a threat to inter-Community trade?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)

Subject: North-West of England Programme Monitoring Committee

Is the Commission aware of the decision by the North-West of England Programme Monitoring Committee on 15 December to allocate £8.1 million to the scheme for an Imperial War Museum in the North, which by the date in question had already been turned down for Heritage Lottery Funding, and to place in reserve the Manchester Museums Project requesting £7.6 million to secure an already existing grant of £36 million from the same Heritage Lottery Fund?

Worthy as the Imperial War Museum in the North scheme is, it now has unfortunately almost no chance of funding, and is jeopardizing a scheme with a total value of £51 million involving 135 new jobs and 328 indirectly because of the uncertainties involved.

Will the Commission ask the relevant programme committee to justify their decision?

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

At its meeting on 15 December 1997 the Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire objective 2 programme monitoring committee considered four applications for European regional development fund (ERDF) assistance under measure 19 of the single programming document (SPD) 'strategic tourism investment'. These applications sought funding totalling about 36 MECU compared with the 19 MECU available from the ERDF for that measure.

The projects were assessed on the basis of selection criteria agreed by the monitoring committee at the outset of the programme. These take into account a number of factors, including value for money in terms of attracting new visitors to the region and creating jobs. The monitoring committee agreed to support two projects: Xanadu and the Imperial war museum. It justified its decision on the basis that these projects were best able to meet the goals set out in the SPD. The two projects were given six months to demonstrate their deliverability within the lifetime of the programme. After this time the monitoring committee will either confirm their approval of the projects or consider the other two projects - Union Street cultural quarter and then the Manchester museums project - which have been placed on a reserve list.