ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Wrongful maintaining of the monopoly of the Italian State Printing Works

On the basis of judgment C/44/96 the European Court of Justice recently obliged Austria to dismantle the legal monopoly in the supply of goods and services to the civil service, which was operated by Strohal Rotation Druck. According to Community legislation, therefore, government departments cannot grant exclusive rights to supply stationery and printing services to the civil service, with very few exceptions ( such as stamps and codes of law). Whilst in other Member States, such as France and Great Britain, the State bodies which used to have a monopoly in supplies to the civil service have already been privatized, the situation in Italy has remained unchanged. According to press reports it would seem that the Chairman of the Italian State Printing Works, which last year suffered a loss of more than Lit 600 billion, intends to reschedule the group's debts with an Italian government decree providing for the transfer of approximately 1 000 billion of public funds and confirming the Printing Works' exclusive right to supply stamps and stationery to the civil service.

Can the Commission therefore say:

- whether the decree in question does not constitute State aid;

- whether there are not sufficient reasons to justify infringement proceedings against the Italian State, which continues to maintain a protected market in this sector in blatant contravention of Community rules on free competition?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Commission asked the Italian authorities about alleged state aid to Poligrafico in April 1997. The information submitted by the Italian authorities on several occasions has not reassured the Commission on the absence of state aid.

Therefore, the Commission, by decision of 28 October 1998, decided to open proceedings under Article 93(2) EC Treaty. This will allow the Commission to assess the presence of state aid, and, if so, its compatibility with the common market, in the capital increases in favour of Cartiere Miliani di Fabriano, controlled by Poligrafico, and in the exclusive contracts granted to Poligrafico itself for the provision of products and services to the state.

On the basis of the observations submitted by the Italian government, the Commission will assess the measures in accordance with the state aid rules of the EC Treaty, and in particular with Articles 92 and 93.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/98

by María Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Fires in the far east of Russia

The far eastern taiga of Russia (Sakhalin island and the Khabarovsk region) has been suffering the effects of a large number of fires since the spring. More than 1 800 000 hectares of forest has already been destroyed by fire as a result of a dry and warm summer, strong winds and the lack of any means of fighting the fires. In addition to this incalculable loss, unique animal species are under threat; they include the Ussuri tiger, 80 % of whose habitat has been devastated. At the present time, these fires are still burning out of control, with the consequent loss of biological diversity and adverse influence on the global climate.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Will it be contributing any kind of financial and/or material aid to alleviate the effects of this ecological disaster?

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

(8 December 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problem of forestry fires in the Russian Federation, not only in the region of Sakhalin and Khabarosk, but also in other parts of the territory. One to three million hectares are damaged or lost annually through fire.

The Commission, in the framework of the 1997 Tacis action programme, designed a project specifically addressing this question which will start in the coming weeks. It is called "Improvement in forest fire response systems" and its main objective is to improve the fire-fighting response of the Russian Federal forestry fire service, both in terms of time and quality. Three regional centers will benefit directly or indirectly from the project (Pushkino, Krasnoyarsk and Khabarosk).

A detailed description of this project is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3191/98 by Arthur NEWENS to the Commission. EU aid to the countries of the former USSR



Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0103



WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/98 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission (27 October 1998) Subject: EU aid to the countries of the former USSR Would the Commission list the total amount of aid which has been supplied to each of the states which were formerly members of the USSR on an annual basis since the break-up of the Soviet Union and provide a breakdown of the headings under which that aid has been supplied?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3675/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(7 December 1998)

Subject: The 1999 budget

The draft budget, entitled "Budget for the taxpayer", was adopted by the European Parliament at first reading. Efforts were made to cut back, particularly on the expenditure side. However, the budget for Parliament was increased by 1,7 % over the previous year. One of the reasons given was increased costs for the forthcoming elections.

1. What specific measures are involved, and what exactly are these increases?

2. Who will have access to these funds?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 1999)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2835/98

by Niall Andrews (UPE) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Sellafield

Is the Commission aware of the recent leakage into the Irish Sea from the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant and has it made enquiries of the British Government on the matter? If so, what was the response from the British Government?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1998)

The Commission is not aware of any recent leakage into the Irish Sea from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant.

Nevertheless, the Commission will seek further information from the British authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)

The safe storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste from the High Flux Reactor in Petten, the Netherlands, could be jeopardised by a shortage of storage capacity. The Netherlands Energy Research Centre (ECN), which is operating the Petten reactor with the authorisation of the Commission, expects storage capacity to be exhausted at the end of this year. Arrangements will therefore have to be made in good time for storing the waste elsewhere. However, Covra's storage facility, the central storage point in Zeeland, is not yet ready, nor has a licence for temporary storage yet been issued.

The ECN considers that the safe storage of nuclear waste at Petten must not be endangered, and says that it will close the reactor down when storage capacity is nearly exhausted.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2. What role does the Commission intend to play in solving the problem?

3. Might the Commission be considering helping another EU Member State to solve the problem?

4. Who would then be responsible for transport and financing?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1998)

1. The Commission is aware of the problem. As owner and licence holder its Joint research centre (JRC) is responsible for the operation of the high flux reactor. A large part of the reactor operation is executed under contract by the ECN (now NRG) Petten.

2. To solve the problem the Commission has considered several solutions. Arrangements were made in 1996 for the storage of spent fuel and waste in the form of a contract with Covra signed in July 1996. This covers the temporary storage of the waste. It is correct that the storage capacity at Covra is not yet available since the licence is not yet issued. The second level solution is the storage of the waste (spent fuel) in the pound of the reactor building, where more storage capacity is possible.

3. Waste management is effected at national level. No example exists of cooperation at Community level of nuclear waste storage. Safety rules have to comply with national regulations and practices. Moreover, any possible reprocessing action that could be contracted with another Member State such as France would imply the return of the resulting waste to the Netherlands for final storage.

4. Transport of the spent fuel from Petten to Covra is taken over by the JRC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2997/98

by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the Brenner base-level tunnel project

In its White Paper "A strategy for revitalising the Community's railways" the Commission stressed that greater use of the railways as an economic alternative to road transport would be an effective way of combating the problem of heavy traffic volumes. The province of Tirol is the region of the European Union most heavily affected by Alpine transit. It is planned in the framework of the TENs to build a Brenner base-level tunnel, which should enable a large part of the goods and passenger traffic that passes through the Tirol to be moved to the railways.

1. In the view of the Commission, has the time now come to start building the Brenner basis-level tunnel?

2. If so, how are the access routes leading through Italy and Germany to the tunnel to be created?

3. If not, what are the reasons not to begin construction as soon as possible, and when will building begin?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 23 July 1996(1)), which constitute a general reference framework intended to encourage the Member States in carrying out projects of common interest, foresee the construction of a new high-speed railway line (in addition to the existing railway line) from the German/Austrian border (Kufstein), via Wörgl, Innsbruck, Austrian/Italian border (Brenner pass) to Fortezza. This forms part of one of the 14 priority projects adopted by the European Council at Essen.

Following joint declarations by the governments of the Member States concerned and comprehensive feasibility studies, Innsbruck and Fortezza are to be linked through the Brenner base tunnel. This tunnel project, as well as the upgrading of the access routes to it, constitutes a long-term project which will be implemented in stages, depending on capacity requirements. While for the first stage (the Kufstein - Innsbruck section) construction work is planned to start in 1999, for the Brenner base tunnel all the technical design studies (Baureifplanung) have still to be carried out before works can begin. This phase, including extensive geological and geotechnical investigations, is essential for the granting of building permission by the relevant Italian and Austrian authorities.

The German, Italian and Austrian governments and the Commission have agreed that these studies should be started as soon as possible. The necessary preparations are currently in hand. The Commission is satisfied that all parties involved are making every effort to carry out the essential design phase as quickly and efficiently as possible so that construction can start as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Regulation on credit reference agencies

Would the Commission consider legislating to introduce common regulatory controls over the work of credit reference agencies across the European single market, compelling them to make their files available to the subject of those files, to correct any misrepresentations in the information they hold and to provide adequate compensation for those disadvantaged by inaccurate information disclosed to other bodies?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

The issue of individuals' rights with respect to information held about them in credit reference files is addressed by existing Community law in the form of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data on the free movement of such data(1) (the data protection Directive), which Member States were required to implement by 25 October 1998.

This Directive guarantees to individuals rights of access to and rectification of data held about them, as well as a right to be given information about the "logic" used in the data processing in particular where significant decisions are taken on a purely automated basis - an important feature given the complexity of credit-scoring techniques. Where the result of an automated decision is negative for the individual, he must be given the possibility to air his point of view. People suffering damage as a result of inaccurate data or breaches of any of the Directive's other provisions are entitled to compensation.

The Commission will continue to monitor the need for further regulation of this area in the light of the requirements of the internal market.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/98

by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Hunting of bears and the habitats directive

A bear recently killed a man who was out walking on land close to an inhabited area in Finland. Bears have started to approach human settlements more frequently, giving rise to discussions on how safely people can walk in the countryside and in thinly-populated areas. At the same time, however, the Commission has urged Finland, referring to the nature protection provisions of the habitats directive, to reduce the number of hunting licences. This has led to a lively discussion in the media. The Commission is effectively placing a higher value on a bear's life than on a human being's.

In the light of the above, what does the Commission propose to do to ensure a more sensible interpretation of the habitats directive and permit people to hunt bears which prove dangerous? If the Commission's inflexible line on this issue does not change, it will have to be held responsible for the loss of human lives.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 1998)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that a specific derogation in the interest of public safety is included in Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the habitats directive)(1). According to Article 16, Member States are allowed in such a case to derogate from the provisions to protect animal species, including the brown bear.

The Commission has as a priority checked the conformity of the Finnish hunting legislation, and it has invited Finland to revise its transposition in order to reach a full compliance with the habitats directive. The question of the number of hunting licences falls outside of the framework of this exercise and has thus not yet been assessed. The Commission is of the opinion that Finland has all the necessary discretion, according to the habitats directive, to allow the killing of bears to protect human life.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2621/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(31 July 1998)

Subject: Threat to the badger (meles meles) in the United Kingdom

How can the Commission claim, in its answer dated 30 March 1998(1) to Mr Doeke Eisma's Question P-0787/98, that the measures recommended in the Kreb report, namely the extermination of the badger in selected areas, would also benefit the badger population as a whole, given that only a very minute percentage of badgers is infected with TB and that partial extermination of the badger will not lead to the eradication of the disease among badgers?

Does the Commission regard total extermination of the badger in the United Kingdom as acceptable because the badger is indicated as the cause of TB?

Is not the credibility of European nature policy tarnished, given that the total or partial extermination of badgers constitutes an abrupt break with the current practice, based on European nature policy, whereby reserves are set aside in the United Kingdom for badgers, tunnels are built beneath roads to cut the number of badger deaths and entire badger families are provided with new habitats if they can no longer be managed in their old habitats because of urban developments?

Is the Commission prepared to reconsider its view that it is acceptable for a native protected animal species living in the wild to be exterminated because it may be involved in the spread of diseases among domestic animals?

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 129.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/98

by Angela Sierra González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 September 1998)

Subject: Inclusion of representatives from local and regional authorities in EU national delegations

The Spanish Government has stated its view that representatives of the autonomous communities cannot be included within the governmental delegations which attend meetings of the EU Council of Ministers dealing with matters exclusively within the competence of the regions.

This view rules out the possibility of the closer involvement of local and regional authorities in EU decision-making, which should be achieved by enhancing the role of all local administrations in the EU in all decision-making at Community level.

Furthermore, this is tantamount to ignoring the principle of subsidiarity and stalling progress towards a new policy of transparency, both of which are vital to improving the Union's decision-making procedure.

Is the Commission aware of the view expressed by the Spanish Government?

Does it believe that the opportunity exists to promote the involvement of the various regional authorities in intergovernmental decision-making in the Council and in the other Community bodies?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1998)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter. It feels that the question ought to be put to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3198/98

by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Replies to the EU fisheries sector inquiry

It is public knowledge that some months ago, the Commission decided to carry out an inquiry involving various trade union and employers' organisations within the European Union's fisheries sector. Inter alia, the purpose of the inquiry was to sound out the EU's fishery sector on the policy guidelines to be followed from 2002 by the Common Fisheries Policy.

At the end of June, during a seminar held in Lisbon as part of Expo 98, the Commission's Director-General for Fisheries claimed that the replies received so far indicated strongly that the Member States wished to uphold their sovereign rights to access to fishery resources within their own territorial waters within a 12-mile exclusion zone, and even wished to extend the exclusion zone still further.

Given that the deadline for replies to the inquiry has now expired, and as far as I know, the general wish is that the 12-mile zone be maintained or extended, can the Commission tell me whether:

1. The overall tenor of the replies received does indeed confirm the claims made by the Commission's Director-General for Fisheries at the Lisbon seminar?

2. If so, what policy initiatives does the Commission intend to take in response, i.e. to ensure that the post 2002 Common Fisheries Policy continues to guarantee the 12 mile exclusion zone access rights for Member States within their own waters, and indeed to guarantee these exclusive rights in zones over 12 miles in extent?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

In general, the tenor of those replies to the questionnaire that the Commission presented at the Lisbon seminar and to which the Honourable Member refers was confirmed once all the replies were scrutinised. As regards the 6 or 12-mile limit in particular, a majority of the organisations that replied wanted it to be maintained. Only a minority sought its extension beyond 12 miles.

The Commission is committed to listening to those working in the sector and, as a result, will not take a position on the various issues involved until the consultation procedure has finished. It goes without saying that, at the proper time, any legislative proposal arising from this debate will be put before the Parliament for its opinion, in accordance with the legislation in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work

With regard to the Council Directive amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (COM(98) 170 final - 98/0093/SYN)(1), up to now there has only been evidence of the carcinogenic nature of beech and oak dust, which can cause adenocarcinomas of the nose and/or mucous membranes of the nose.

In addition, the Scientific Committee has stated that there is clear evidence implicating other types of wood. Differences still exist between the Member States with regard to the limit values for beech and oak wood dust and to some extent also with regard to wood dust in general. The various limit values range from 2 to 10 mg/m3.

Can the Commission therefore incorporate in the directive an initial value of 5 mg/m3 as the threshold for exposure at work with the proviso that that value must be reviewed within five years on the basis of scientific data?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 1998)

The Commission has already taken account of the Honourable Member's suggestions in its amended proposal for a Council Directive amending for the second time Directive 90/394/EEC(2). This proposal was adopted on 12 November 1998 following the opinion expressed by Parliament.

(1) OJ C 123, 22.4.1998, p. 21.

(2) COM(98) 665 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3657/98

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

(4 December 1998)

Subject: ECB sanctions

On 7 July 1998 the ECB published a draft recommendation for a Council Regulation on the powers of the European Central Bank to impose sanctions. The said regulation will enter into force on 1 January 1999.

Article 3(8), concerning procedural rules, states that the proceeds from sanctions imposed by the ECB will belong to the ECB itself.

Will the Commission explain whether the Statute of the ECB contains specific provisions on how these proceeds are to be utilised?

Reply

(8 February 1999)

On 23 November 1998 the Council adopted, pursuant to Article 108 paragraph 3 of the Treaty and Article 34.3 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, a Regulation laying down the limits and the conditions for the imposition of sanctions by the ECB. This Regulation will apply in its entirety as from 1 January 1999.

Article 3 paragraph 9 of this Regulation stipulates that the proceeds of sanctions imposed by the ECB on undertakings for failure to comply with obligations under regulations or decisions adopted by the ECB shall belong to the ECB.

The Statute of the ECB does not contain specific rules concerning the use of these proceeds.