ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3587/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Free issue of public road transport licences to non-Greek hauliers

The Greek authorities assert that the Commission is putting pressure on Greece to issue lorry licences to non-Greek road hauliers without restriction. They also point out that the issue of licences to road hauliers is completely unrestricted in all the other Member States of the Union.

Will the Commission say to what extent this is true and whether this measure is required by Community legislation and specify the regulations and directives which oblige the Greek authorities to issue these licences without restriction?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The Commission has not put any pressure on the Greek authorities in the matter to which the Honourable Member refers, namely, the issuing by Greece of licences to non-Greek road hauliers.

The Greek national market, where access has hitherto been rather strictly controlled, is being gradually opened up to non-Greek hauliers through the cabotage regime which the Council adopted in 1993 under Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )).

The statistical evidence so far indicates that very few hauliers from other Member States carry out cabotage operations in Greece, the authorizations for which are issued by the Member State of establishment of the transport operator, not by Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3889/97 by Marlene Lenz (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Transposition in Italy of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 June 1991

What action will the Commission take to ensure the immediate transposition in Italy of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1. )), in accordance with which a conversion of driving licences is no longer required within the countries of the European Union?

A German citizen who acquired 'residenza' (in Pantasina near Imperia) in January 1997, and who subsequently re-registered his vehicle in Italy with the appropriate authorities in Imperia, has been told to exchange his German driving licence for an Italian licence within one year.

When he inquired whether the abovementioned directive had already been transposed in Italy, he had the impression that the Italian authorities were not even aware of if.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (29 January 1998)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences came into effect on 1 July 1996. Italy transposed this Directive into national law on 8 August 1994 (Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale 193 del 19.8.1994, pp. 13-34).

However, it appeared from correspondence between the national authorities in Rome and the local offices responsible for the implementation of the above-mentioned legislation that the transposition into Italian law was not in conformity with some of the provisions of Directive 91/439/EEC. This was confirmed by a number of complaints from citizens. In particular, since 1 July 1996 the main principle of mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States has been restricted by the Italian authorities to driving licences that are in conformity with the model specified in Annex I of Directive 91/439/EEC. This means that holders of a driving licence issued by another Member State before 1 July 1996 and not in conformity with Annex I of the Directive, were still required to exchange their licence within the period of a year after having taken up normal residence in Italy.

Following several unsuccessful requests to the Italian authorities that they correctly apply the Directive, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Italian authorities on 29 July 1997. Italy replied by letter of 31 October 1997 and announced it would adapt its legislation to bring it in line with Directive 91/439/EEC. In view of the numerous complaints from people living in Italy, the Commission intends to follow this issue carefully and will continue its infringement procedure while awaiting the coming into effect of amended provisions bringing the application of the Italian legislation into line with Directive 91/439/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Council (21 October 1997)

Subject: Implementation of the European Parliament's resolution on the violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples and the logging of tropical forests on Yamdena Island in Indonesia

Further to Parliament's resolutions B4-0065/97 and 0130/97 ((OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 147. )), does the Council know whether the Indonesian Government taken serious action to engage in a dialogue with the indigenous peoples of Yamdena Island with a view to finding a socially acceptable solution for the sustainable development of Yamdena and the Moluccan Archipelago?

How does the Council intend to convey the European Parliament's concern about the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Moluccan Archipelago and the logging of tropical forests on Yamdena Island in its contacts with the Indonesian Government?

Answer (26 February 1998)

The Council is not aware of any specific action by the Indonesian Government which aims to address the issue raised in the question.

In contacts between Member States and other countries in Asia, including Indonesia, the question of the rights of indigenous people is normally tackled within the context of the ongoing discussion on human rights. It is customary that the European Union's concern for minorities is raised.

Sustainable development for regions such as those referred to in the question has for some length of time been another major issue in discussions between the Union and developing countries. Indonesia is no exception to this principle.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Application of Community law

The report on monitoring the application of Community law (1996) shows that the Commission's 'package meetings' with the Member States produced a solution in 42% of the cases examined. In view of the fact that this purely preventive measure saves considerable amounts of money and effort for the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Member States, will the Commission say:

1. whether it plans to hold such meetings more systematically and regularly,

2 what 'package meetings' are scheduled for 1998, so as to allow more scope for preparation, and,

3. whether it has the required number of lawyers on its staff, particularly in the fields of the environment and civil liberties?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1997)

1. The Commission regularly holds package meetings with the authorities of the Member States to consider the whole range of infringement proceedings in motion in a given area. It has developed this practice wherever possible.

The Commission is also planning to pursue its bilateral meetings with the national authorities concerning the implementation of directives in general terms. These meetings (known as 'directive missions') provide an opportunity to make authorities aware of their duty to transpose directives and to help them in their job of doing so. The purpose is to speed up the transposal process and thereby avert infringement situations.

2. The schedule of meetings for 1998 is under discussion with the national authorities.

3. Yes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3728/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: GSP and the countries of the Andean Pact and Central American Common Market - fraud affecting certificates of origin

Cases of fraud have been detected with regard to certificates of origin for tuna imports by Community firms from third countries such as Colombia and Costa Rica.

Given that the governments of the exporter countries act as delegates for the Commission and issue the certificates concerned, which come on official paper, why are the importing firms held responsible for this offence when they are acting in good faith in assuming that certificates issued by an official body in an authorized country are valid?

Does the Commission not consider that this is unfair?

Furthermore, why is it that all Community governments are not dealing with this issue in the same way, given that their companies are involved? Some countries do not require a guarantee for these imports, since the investigations have not been completed, while others do, placing their firms at a clear disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors.

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

The problem raised by the Honourable Member touches on the extensive problem area of how preferential tariff arrangements operate. The Commission adopted a communication ((COM(97) 402 final. )) to the Council and Parliament on this subject at the end of July last year.

The specific problems of good faith and the standardisation of action taken by Member States in relation to recovery are given precise answers in that communication. With regard to 'good faith', the Commission is naturally obliged to comply with the findings of the Court of Justice namely, that confidence in the validity of the certificate of origin is not normally protected. This means that its validity may be contested if, for example, the goods to which it relates were not obtained in compliance with the criteria of origin. Likewise, however reliable the authorities issuing certificates of origin in a non-member country, the ability to contest their validity is still necessary, should fraud occur after a certificate is issued (e.g. attempted importation into the Community of a good other than that exported). To the Court of Justice ((Case of Van Gend & Loos NV; Joined cases 98/83 and 230/83; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 13 November 1994. See also, however, Faroe Seafood - Joined cases C 153/94 and C 204/94 - Judgment of 14 May 1997. )), all these points constitute, among others, a normal commercial risk.

Action by the Member States lacks the desired uniformity because the Community does not have a single customs administration. The Commission will attempt to improve the situation either by means of a horizontal instrument, or under Decision No 210/97/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 December 1996 adopting an action programme for customs in the Community (Customs 2000) ((OJ L 33, 4.2.1997. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/97 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Disposal of OP Sheep Dip and pollution of ground water

With reference to Commission letter P1242/90 (DGXI), what proceedings, if any, have or are being taken by the European Commission against the United Kingdom for breaching the Ground Water Directive?

In particular, is any action being taken which concerned specifically Scotland and the use of OP sheep dip resulting in pollution of ground water?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

The complaint registered under Commission file P1242/90 has been pursued under file reference 90/5242. Following supplementary correspondence with the british government under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission has decided that a reasoned opinion should be sent to the United Kingdom. This decision is currently in the course of execution.

The Commission considers that the legislative transposition in the United Kingdom (including Scotland) of Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances ((OJ L 20, 26.1.1980. )) is inadequate, in particular because prior authorization and investigation of disposal is not required in all the situations provided for in the Directive. Furthermore, it appears to the Commission that there has been inadequate application of the requirements of the Directive in relation to sheep dip disposal (including in Scotland).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3735/97 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: JEM Programme

Would the Commission supply me with an initial report on this programme specifying:

1. The number of candidates having taking part in exchanges between the European Union and the Asian countries since this programme has been in existence,

2. The number of business receiving the participants and the sectors to which they belong.

Answer given on behalf of Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)

The Junior EU-ASEAN Managers Exchange Programme was set up during 1996 and became fully operative in November 1996. It provides businesses in both regions with an opportunity to take in young managers from the partner region, allowing exchange of experience and culture.

Since November 1996, three groups of young Asian managers (with 14, 17 and 10 members) have been found places in 19 businesses in six Member States, in the commerce and distribution, transport and electronic systems, energy and environment sectors respectively. Some 15 young European managers are to be sent to Asia and 15 young Asian managers are to come to Europe in January and February 1998, entering the distribution and micro-electronic sectors in Asia and distribution, the media and banks in Europe.

The Programme's first year in operation produced excellent results; the firms and young managers taking part expressed genuine satisfaction based on this experience. The Commission has also instructed an independent consultant to draw up an initial evaluation on this basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3636/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in Spain

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether Spain requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Producer responsibility obligations (packaging waste) regulations, UK 1996

Does the Commission agree that the UK should be taken before the European Court of Justice in order to test whether the UK packaging regulations constitute a barrier to free trade in the EU?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4030/97 and E-4034/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that it is currently examining the implementing measures notified by the United Kingdom in respect of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )). The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will take appropriate action should the full examination reveal any barriers to free trade. In this regard, the Commission would be pleased to receive any further details from the Honourable Member concerning the alleged barrier to trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/97 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Council (28 November 1997)

Subject: Agricultural prices and monetary fluctuations after the introduction of the euro

After the introduction of the single currency in some of the Member States, what will happen to the meaures which compensate for losses caused by monetary fluctuations affecting intra-EU trade in agricultural products?

It is understood that such fluctuations will Longer exist de facto within the euro area. The problem concerns trade between those countries in the euro area and the 'pre-in' countries: will exports of agricultural products from the euro area to the 'pre-ins' still receive this compensation when there are monetary fluctuations outside the euro area?

What is the Council's opinion on this specific aspect of the consequences of the introduction of the euro on the common agricultural policy?

Answer (26 February 1998)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (CAP), which has no time limit on its application, is the basic Council act governing compensation for losses caused by monetary fluctuations affecting intra-Community trade in agricultural products. However, in the case of compensation for loss of income caused by monetary fluctuations, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 724/97, which represents an exception to the aforementioned Regulation, in order to comply with its obligations under the GATT and those of budgetary discipline. That Regulation will remain in force until 30 April 1998.

The Council has not, as yet, received any Commission proposals to adjust the current legislation and shape the future agri-monetary environment. Consequently, the Council does not at the moment have enough information at its disposal to enable it to pronounce on the effects that any future monetary fluctuations might have on trade flows of agricultural products between the 'in' and 'pre-in' Member States, or between Member States which are not in the euro area from the outset.

The time to assess the foreseeable impact of the introduction of the euro on the CAP will be when the Council comes to discuss the adoption of the new legislation to be proposed by the Commission, after consultation of the European Parliament.

In view of the importance of this subject, the Council will devote particular attention to examining these proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4192/97 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Council (22 January 1998)

Subject: Private ownership of weapons

For some time now there has been a steadily growing number of reports of incidents in the various Member States involving gunmen running amok and causing many deaths. The victims are of very diverse origin, different kinds of weapon are used (although most of them are fairly readily available) and the perpetrators are of very varying types. Such incidents can probably only be prevented if the private ownership (and in particular the trade in, and the purchase of, weapons for personal use) is subject to uniformly strict EU-wide regulations and restrictions.

In view of such incidents in the Member States, is the Commission intending to tighten up the EU directive on weapons?

Answer (30 March 1998)

As the Honourable Member will no doubt be aware, the acquisition and possession of weapons by private individuals is currently regulated by Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 (OJ L 256 of 13 September 1991). Under the Directive, firearms are divided up into four categories: those which are prohibited, those subject to authorization, those subject to declaration and those which may be bought and sold without any restriction. Member States are also free to retain or introduce more stringent measures as they think fit. In fact, most of the Member States have either banned the purchase of firearms by individuals or made it subject to authorization. The Council has not so far received any Commission proposals for tightening up the law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3744/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Fire safety in hotels

Further to Question E-1423/97 ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 29. )), can the Commission indicate what action is being taken on the recommendations set out in the CETEN/APAVE Study, particularly those relating to the Fire Safety Training of Hotel Staff, the Inspection and the Maintenance of Fire Safety Equipment, the Unification of National Hotel Fire Safety Regulations and the Creation of a Hotel Fire Safety Register? These matters were put forward in Section V.I (synthese des propositions) of the study (pages 716 and 717).

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1998)

As the Honourable Member will know from the Commission's reply to her written question E-1423/97 earlier this year, the study carried out by CETEN/APAVE has as its objective a verification of the degree to which Member States had implemented in their national legislation the recommendations included in the Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC of 22 December 1986 on fire safety in existing hotels ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1986. )).

The result of the study was that national legislations almost always have incorporated the elements of the Recommendation so that these may be considered as minimum standards always respected and in some cases even exceeded.

The recommendations made by the authors of the study were made on their own initiative. While definitely interesting and potentially inspiring for any new measures at national or Community level, they are not binding on the Commission. As the study demonstrated the success of the measures already agreed, the Commission does not, for the moment, envisage any particular follow-up of these recommendations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-4230/97 by Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Approval of the 1997-1999 Single Planning Document for the Region Friuli Venezia Giulia

The Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia submitted to the Commission the Single Planning Document for the period 1997-1999 at the beginning of August.

Despite intensive negotiations and assurances that the decision-making process would be rapidly concluded, the Document has still not been approved by the Commission.

Can the Commission state the reasons for the delay?

Is the Commission aware that the unjustified delay in the adoption of a decision on the subject is causing the regional government obvious difficulties in the execution of the planned measures?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 February 1998)

The Commission is pleased to confirm that the objective 2 single programming document for Friuli-Venezia-Giulia for the period 1997-1999 was adopted on 18 December 1997.

The Commission regrets the delay in taking this decision which was due essentially to the need to clarify certain aspects of the region's proposals and will do its utmost to assist the region to overcome any resulting implementation difficulties.