ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/97 by Ole Krarup (I-EDN) to the Commission (28 October 1997)

Subject: Right of residence directives

With reference to the Amsterdam Treaty's new provisions on increased freedom of movement for persons etc., could the Commission say to what extent the three directives on the right of residence adopted in 1990 now apply to a more extensive group of persons?

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

The Directives to which the Honourable Member refers are Directives 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity ((OJ L 180, 13.7.1990. )), 90/364/EEC on the right of residence and 96/93/EEC on the right of residence for students ((OJ L 317, 18.12.1993. )).

Among other things, these Directives extended the scope of the right of residence, which had initially been restricted to persons exercising an economic activity. In this connection, Directive 90/364/EEC states in Article 1 that it does not apply to 'nationals of Member States who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law'.

This extension of the right of residence has been sanctioned by the Treaty on European Union. By virtue of Article 8a, inserted into the EC Treaty, freedom of movement is now a fundamental right conferred on every citizen of the Union, and there is Longer any reference to the exercise of economic activity ((Second Commission report on Union citizenship (COM(97) 230 final). )). Article 8a does though stipulate that this right is to be exercised subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the EC Treaty and secondary legislation.

The Amsterdam Treaty, which has incorporated Article 8a, does not alter the legal situation as regards the right of residence.

The Commission would add that, in the report which it is drawing up on the application of the above three Directives, it will pay special attention to the difficulties that individuals might encounter in securing recognition of their right of residence under one of those Directives.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3601/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (6 November 1997)

Subject: Timetable for submission of the new Commission proposal outlawing driftnets

At the Council of Fisheries Ministers of 30 April 1997 the Spanish delegation submitted a request for the outlawing of driftnets, which was supported by the Italian and German delegations, provided that the new proposal was consistent with the positions adopted in the report of Parliament.

Commissioner Bonino endorsed this position when she addressed the plenary of Parliament on 10 June 1997, undertaking to submit a new proposal before the end of 1997.

The ratification of this position by the delegations mentioned above, at the informal Council held in La Toja in September 1997 - also taking into account the statement made by the British fisheries minister to the Spanish delegation to the effect that his government would support a ban along the lines adopted in the report of Parliament - will require a sufficient majority in Council to ensure adoption of the new Commission proposal in its amended form.

Can the Commission supply the timetable for the submission of this proposal by the end of 1997?

Have any fresh facts led to the alteration of the position expressed by the Commission to the plenary of Parliament?

In particular, has any government of any Member State communicated to the Commission a position contrary to or different from that set out at the Council meeting in April 1997 and at the informal Council held in La Toja which might jeopardize a fresh majority or necessitate a change of strategy with a view to the definitive resolution of the problem of driftnet use?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

The first point the Commission would make is that there has never been an informal ministerial meeting in La Toja. The Commission reaffirms its determination to help find a solution as soon as possible on the issue of driftnets, but the outcome does not depend on whether the current Commission proposal serves as a basis for a draft Presidency compromise or whether a new proposal is put forward. It will be determined by whether a qualified majority can be obtained to settle the matter.

It was with this in mind that the Commission undertook in April 1997 to approach the Member States most directly concerned to try to find the best way of breaking the deadlock. However, these contacts failed to secure a qualified majority by the end of 1997 on a compromise drafted by the Presidency.

Given that the UK Presidency has clearly stated its intention to take swift action, it now seems that the prerequisites are met for seeking the vital qualified majority in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3890/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Exclusion of farmers from compensation

In its decisions interpreting Regulation (EC) 950/97 ((OJ L 142, 2.6.1997, p.1.)) which replaced Regulation (EEC) 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p.1.)) the Greek Government has used the 'family income' and not the income of the 'farmer' as the criterion for the implementation of Article 5; this means that farmers with family members (spouses, children) working outside the agricultural holding and having their own income are excluded from compensation in respect of natural disasters.

Given that the development of the countryside as promoted by EU policies depends in part on the existence of incomes from outside agriculture, will the Commission say:

1. Is it legitimate to take into account the non-agricultural incomes of other members of the family in calculating the income of a farmer practising farming as his main occupation?

2. What does it intend to do to ensure that farmers who meet the criteria set out in Article 5 of Regulation 950/97 are not excluded from compensation for this reason?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 February 1998)

Under Regulation (EC) No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, in order to concentrate aid for investment on those holdings which need it most, Greece has defined farmers practising farming as their main occupation in a way which takes account of family income in the calculation of their overall income.

Member States are allowed to lay down additional criteria for the definition of farmers practising farming as their main occupation, since the above Regulation specifies only the minimum criteria that farmers practising farming as their main occupation have to fulfil to be eligible for the aid in question ((See Article 5(5) of the Regulation. )).

Application by Greece of the family income criterion in order to establish eligibility for state aid granted in the event of disasters is justified for the same reason as for aid under Regulation (EC) No 950/97. This additional criterion laid down for granting state aid does not pose a problem of compatibility with Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the EC Treaty governing aid granted by Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Purchase of uniforms for the staff of ATAC (the local bus and tram company)/ CO.TRA.L. (the Lazio public transport consortium)

A statement was recently submitted to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Rome concerning alleged irregularities in the supply of uniforms for the staff of ATAC/CO.TRA.L. According to this statement, submitted by the regional secretariat of the National Confederation of Transport Workers, not only did the uniforms supplied under a contract awarded by ATAC as a result of a private bidding procedure to a Rome firm not correspond to the samples as regards the quality of the material, but the attitude shown by ATAC/CO.TRA.L. was contrary to that indicated in the letter awarding the contract, which stated that if the goods supplied did not match the specifications the whole transaction would be called into question. Instead, the company solved the problem on 13 June 1997 by merely obtaining a very small discount on the goods supplied, without refusing the consignment as laid down. This situation raises doubts about the correctness of the prices indicated in the letter awarding the contact, in view of the large number of items of clothing needed by the company and the special characteristics of the materials required for the uniforms.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether the call to tender concerned complied fully with European legislation on public supply contracts, in particular Directive 93/38/EEC ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.)) coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the transport sector;

2. what its opinion of the above-mentioned affair is?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

1. The particulars given by the Honourable Member, namely that, when supplied, the uniforms did not correspond to the samples on the basis of which the contract had been awarded and that the awarding authority did not refuse the entire consignment but simply asked for a discount, contrary to what was stipulated in the letter awarding the contract, do not constitute breaches of Community public procurement legislation.

They relate to the implementation phase of the contract, viz. the obligations to be met by the parties under the contractual relastionship. They must therefore be assessed in the light of national legislation and not in the light of the Community public procurement directives that coordinate contract award procedures but leave implementation to the national legislature.

Nor is the correctness of prices covered by the directives. Consequently, it can at most be assessed by national courts in the light of the relevant provisions of national law.

2. For the reasons given above, the Commission is unable to comment on the particulars of this case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 November 1997)

Subject: Environmental impact assessments

1. Is the Commission aware that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure may be abused and hence is meaningless if, in the case of an integrated regional plan, only elements which are subsequently varied are subjected to EIAs, so that no comparison is made between the environmental compatibility of a variant included in the original plan and that of a new variant which departs from the plan?

2. Is the Commission planning to amend the EU Directive on EIAs so as to guarantee that EIAs serve their original purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, for the moment, the environmental impact assessment procedure for public and private projects subject to Community legislation and planning are not interconnected.

A project will be subject to an obligatory procedure if it is one of the types of projects listed in Annex I of the Community Directive or if, by its nature, size or location, the Member State believes that it should undergo such a procedure.

The Commission is not aware of any misuse of this procedure such as referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware that Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. )) will come into force in March 1999. The Commission does not intend to modify this new legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4137/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Import of primates from Indonesia

What action does the Commission propose to take in the light of the breaches of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the serious animal suffering recorded in the recent report received by the Commission on the trade in non-human primates from Indonesia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4137/97 and E-4138/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Commission is aware of the November 1997 report by the British union for the abolition of vivisection (BUAV) on a number of shipments of primates from Indonesia to the United States. As at least one shipment transited through the Community, the Commission reminded the authorities of the Member State concerned of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein ((OJ L 61, 3.3.1997. )) and in particular Article 9(5) thereof.

The Commission further requested the Indonesian Convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) management authority to provide it with a reaction to the claims in the BUAV report and to indicate its policy with regard to the implementation of International air transport association (IATA) regulations and captive breeding.

The Commission will consider whether measures under Articles 4(6) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 are necessary in the light of the results of the necessary consultations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (15 January 1998)

Subject: Euro bank notes - distinctive national symbols

On 3 December 1996 the EMI Council decided that the future euro bank notes should not bear any distinctive national symbols.

This position, which is supposed to have been adopted in accordance with Article 109f(3) of the Treaty, is presented sometimes as definitive and sometimes as provisional. According to the latter hypothesis, it is argued that according to Article 105a(1), the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorize the issue of bank notes within the Community. The ECB would therefore, when it has been set up, need to confirm the EMI decision.

However, this interpretation of Article 105a(1) is deemed by many to be too extensive since it amounts to including in 'the issue of bank notes', which relates to monetary policy, the question of distinctive national symbols, which is a profoundly different matter. Does not the Council agree that such an interpretation would be too extensive? Furthermore, would it not amount to having a serious matter of principle decided by a non-democratic body, viz. the ECB?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3986/97, E-3987/97, E-3988/97, E-3989/97 and E-3990/97 (19 March 1998)

It ensues from the allocation of powers provided for under the Treaty that the European Central Bank alone is empowered to authorize the issue of banknotes in euro, also as regards aspects relating to their presentation (Article 105(a) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Protocol to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank).

At its meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, the European Council welcomed the designs for the euro banknotes presented to it by the European Monetary Institute.

The final decisions on the matter will be taken by the European Central Bank once it has been set up in accordance with the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3697/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations for Latvia

The European Union aids the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through its PHARE programme. A great deal of aid has presumably been provided from this programme for the development of the countries which have applied for membership of the EU. Can the Commission provide details of the utilization of appropriations granted under PHARE in 1997 for Latvia?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1997)

The 1997 Phare-funded country operational programme (COP) for Latvia of a total amount of 37.6 MECU focuses on infrastructure, European integration, private sector development and institutional and human resources development. The priority areas in 1997 are:

- European integration (5.5 MECU)

- Public sector development (4.85 MECU)

- Private sector development (6.1 MECU)

- Financial sector development (2.2 MECU)

- Education (1.65 MECU)

- Energy (3.9 MECU)

- Environment (6.1 MECU)

- Transport (5.1 MECU)

- Management (1.3 MECU)

In addition to the 1997 national programme 1.8 MECU has been committed for Tempus and 3.2 MECU for cross-border cooperation projects.

The financing memorandum for the 1997 programme was signed in November 1997 and the programme will be implemented during 1998 and 1999. It is therefore to early to assess the impact of the 1997 programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3501/97 by Arthur Newens (PSE) to the Commission (10 November 1997)

Subject: Experts group on family planning and HIV/AIDS

How many times did the Commission Experts Group on family planning and HIV/AIDS meet last year, and how many times so far this year? What is the timetable for meetings in 1998?

What issues were on the agenda in 1997, and what was the outcome of these meetings?

Apart from the Experts Group meetings what other concrete steps are being taken to improve coordination between the European Commission and Member States in the field of family planning and HIV/AIDS?

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

The expert group on the human immunodefenciency virus and the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) met once in 1996 (31 May 1996) and twice in 1997 (21 March 1997 and 25 November 1997).

The points on the agenda of the first 1997 meeting included innovative approaches concerning reproductive health; a study on 'Social marketing'; first phase of a study about free mobility of people living with HIV/AIDS; main conclusions of the external evaluation on AIDS programme with specific focus on the strategy of the regional programme; Council Regulation (EC) No 550/97 of 24 March 1997 ((OJ L 85, 27.3.1997. )) on HIV/AIDS related operations in developing countries; policy related research results on HIV/AIDS as a collaborative effort between United Nations programme on AIDS, the World bank and the AIDS programme; sharing valuable experiences related to integration of reproductive health issues in particular HIV/AIDS and family planning in the context of health and education system; operational coordination; and the legal basis for the HIV/AIDS budget line discussed in Council and Parliament. The meeting decided to create a sub-group on HIV and care and this sub-group met once in Brussels and once in Geneva. Its work continues.

The second 1997 meeting was organised in a special format because the Commission and the Parliament invited the experts of the Member States to attend a meeting on 'The challenge of HIV/AIDS in developing countries'.

Apart from the expert group meetings, coordination efforts are undertaken regularly in a formal and informal way in the country (in the field) as well as internationally. For example the Community has observer status at the UNAIDS management meetings. In the framework of regular meetings with the Southern African development community the Commission participated in the organisation of a regional meeting on HIV where an action programme was identified, and at country level regular meetings with Member States take place on health sector subjects and when necessary concerning HIV, family planning or reproductive health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4107/97 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (16 January 1998)

Subject: Use of refrigerating services in fruit-processing cross-border areas

In fruit-producing areas there can be (according to the size of the harvest) a shortage of refrigerating capacity on one side of the border and a surplus on the other. On occasions this means that farmers on one side of the border need to hire such capacity from the neighbouring country.

Is the Commission planning any action to facilitate cross-border cooperation in the processing and marketing of agricultural produce?

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

The reform of the fruit and vegetable market organisations introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. )) lays down measures intended to cope with the situation described by the Honourable Member.

Producer organisations may implement operational programmes with a view to improving product quality and developing commercial value. To this end, coldstores in another Member State can be rented. Under the conditions of the single market, products can be processed and marketed without territorial restriction.

The operational programmes are 50%-financed by the Community and if a programme is presented by several Community producer organisations operating in separate Member States for cross-border activities, the rate of funding is increased to 60% of actual expenditure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4070/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Nutritional labelling

Does the Commission agree that future EU food policy - for example the possible framework directive taking the Green Paper forward - must acknowledge the importance of nutrition and the need for consumers to have access to a healthy and nutritious diet?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4070/97 and E-4072/97 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission believes that a safe and adequate supply of a great variety of foods is available today to consumers in the Community as a result of a number of Community policies, measures and activities. Correct and consistent information on food labels but also appropriate knowledge by and education of consumers are important elements which will help them to select a diet to suit their individual needs.

Nutritional claims are one important aspect of labelling and the Commission is currently evaluating the comments on this specific issue received in response to the Commission's green paper on food law ((COM(97) 176 final. )) before deciding on any necessary measures.