ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/98 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Question marks over the way EU aid to Surinam is spent

1. Is it true that construction work on the east-west link in Surinam (from Albina on the eastern border to Nieuw Nickerie on the western border), estimated by the European Union as costing in the region of 50 million guilders, has come to a standstill?

2. Can the Commission explain how this money is now apparently used up, although the construction of the road can in no way be described as complete?

3. What checks has the Commission carried out on the way in which the money intended for the building of the Surinam east-west link has been spent, and in which publications and vis-à-vis what body has the Commission given account of itself?

4. What measures has the Commission taken to prevent the money earmarked for the building of the east-west link from being lost in the event of the bankruptcy of the contractor, and how is it possible that this money has 'inexplicably' disappeared?

5. Has the Commission taken steps in the meantime to ensure that the money made available by the European Union for the building of the container terminal in Paramaribo does not disappear in the same 'inexplicable' way, and that the container terminal is indeed built?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)

1. The project mentioned by the Honourable Member was approved by the Commission on 20 December 1994 for the purpose of rehabilitating parts of the 376 kilometre long coastal road. The works have been split into two lots, one concerning the road and bridges between Meerzorg and Albina (lot 1), the other between Paramaribo and Nickerie (lot 2). Whereas the works of lot 2 are practically finished, those of lot 1 have been the subject of major problems, which were the reason for the Commission to suspend financing of the works as from 1 August 1997. As a result of that, the Suriname administration suspended the works.

2. and 4. As the Commission has suspended financing, the money earmarked for the works concerned and not used for the works executed up to now, remains frozen until further decisions will have been taken and has therefore not disappeared.

3. The checks carried out are the usual checks in following the implementation of projects and programmes financed by the European development fund (EDF) namely technical and financial reporting and control by the consultant supervising the works, and the checking and verification of the progress of the works and the approval of payment orders concerning invoices for works executed, through the Commission's delegation on the spot and by the Commission in Brussels.

5. The implementation of the proposed rehabilitation of the port of Paramaribo, currently under preparation for possible EDF funding, will be subject to the usual rules and procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0015/98 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Structural funds after 1999

With discussions just beginning on the shape of the funds after 1999 and only 24 months to go before the start date of the new programmes, what proposals does the Commission have to ensure that regions and disadvantaged social groups are not penalised if implementation is delayed beyond 1 January 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

The Commission recognises the paramount importance of beginning the next generation of Community structural policies on time on 1 January 2000. Accordingly, the Commission intends to make formal proposals for the future financing of all Community policies, as well as for a new regulatory framework for structural policies, to the Parliament and the Council in March 1998. This should allow sufficient time for new structural programmes to be drawn up and implemented immediately on the expiry of the current programming period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/98 by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: EU resources: Information on the amount of EU aid paid to Berlin in 1997

How much Community aid was paid to Berlin in 1997, as part of which projects and from which funds?

1. From the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)?

2. From the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance and Guarantee Sections?

3. From the European Social Fund (ESF)?

4. From Community research programmes (a) in the university and higher education sector (b) in the private economy sector?

5. From Community programmes in the energy sector?

6. From Community programmes in the environment sector?

7. From programmes in the health sector?

8. From programmes in the youth and training sector?

9. For women's projects?

10. For cultural projects?

11. To promote relations and trade with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe?

12. From other Community programmes?

13. What is the EU's assessment of the success of the measures?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (23 March 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/98 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Clarification of the European Parliament and Council Directive 96/83/EC of 19 December 1996

Article 2(a) paragraph 3 of Directive 96/83/EC ((OJ L 48, 19.2.1997, p. 16.)) refers to sweeteners being used in food for infants and young children.

Would the Commission indicate:

1. What ages cover infants and children?

2. What is deemed to be food?

3. How some foodstuffs e.g. diet cola, seem to be exempt?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 February 1998)

1. The terms 'infants' and 'young children' are defined in Article 1(2)(a) and (b) of Commission Directive 91/321/EEC on infant formulae and follow-on formulae ((OJ L 175, 4.7.1991. )) as follows: 'infants' means children under the age of 12 months and 'young children' means children aged between one and three years.

2. Community legislation does not contain a definition of the term 'food'.

3. Article 2 (3) of Directive 94/35/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs ((OJ L 237, 10.9.1994. )), as amended by Directive 96/83/EC, restricts the use of sweeteners in food intended for infants and young children. Foodstuffs such as 'diet cola' do not belong to this category.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/98 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (30 January 1998)

Subject: EU-wide standards for environmental protection

Can the Commission state whether it has any plans to propose a directive establishing standards for the training and performance of environmental inspectors throughout Europe, since varying standards are currently endangering the universal application of EU environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

The Commission attaches considerable importance to inspection and enforcement in the Member States in order to achieve the proper application of Community environmental legislation in practice.

In its communication on implementing Community environmental law of 22 October 1996 ((COM(96) 500 final. )), the Commission recognised that variable standards of enforcement in the Member States could be a problem. It therefore proposed various measures to deal with this, some of which would specifically concern inspectors and other environmental enforcement officials in the Member States.

Following the Parliament's and the Council's resolutions on the communication, the Commission, together with IMPEL (the informal Community network of Member States' environmental law enforcement officials) have been working on preparing a set of minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States. It is the Commission's intention to make appropriate proposals setting down standards for the form, content and publicity to be given to inspections of polluting installations within the framework of the environmental acquis communautaire. It will cover the planning of inspections, the carrying out of site visits and anlysis of findings, reports and publicity for the results. This is the first, and most critical, element in the Commission's staged approach towards dealing with improving environmental inspections of installations on the ground in the Member States.

As for standards for the training and performance of environmental inspectors throughout the Community, IMPEL is carrying out work on training and the promotion of 'best professional practice' for inspectors, as well as further work on the frequency of inspections and the functioning of environmental inspectorates. This work includes exchange programmes, workshop meetings on specific technical questions arising from certain industries or processes and the development of a reference book and a training course for inspectors. This will clearly assist the improvement and harmonisation of standards of training and performance across the Member States. The results of these programmes will be given in the annual survey to be published by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0029/98 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Sale of tickets for the World Cup

Does the Commission not think the French Football Association's decision to restrict 80% of the sale of tickets for the forthcoming World Cup to French nationals and residents is a contravention of EU competition law?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (20 February 1998)

The French world cup organising committee initially envisaged a ticket distribution system based on territorial exclusivity which would have effectively prevented sales of tickets across borders in the Community. It also envisaged the tying of ticket sales to other services like accommodation and travel. Following representations by the Commission, the organising committee agreed to change the arrangements so that both the authorised tour operators and travel agencies are allowed, firstly, to sell either sole tickets or packages and, secondly, to sell these across national borders. This ensures competition between several distributors all over the Community.

The information available to the Commission indicates that clearly more than 20% of tickets will be sold to residents outside France. As the reservation of tickets is still under way in most European countries, it is not possible to indicate what percentage of tickets will eventually be sold to French residents or anywhere else within the Union of European football associations (UEFA) zone, which includes the whole of the European economic area. In view of allegations made in the press on the violation of European competition law with regard to the sale of tickets for the 1998 world cup football tournament, the Commission has adressed itself to the French organising committee and the five tour operators selected for the sales of tickets within the UEFA zone. The answers to these letters should allow the Commission to obtain a more complete picture of the way in which the French organising committee has allocated tickets.

For the moment no infringements of European competition rules have been established in the context of ticket distribution for the 1998 world cup football tournament.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0329/98 by Luisa Todini (UPE) to the Commission (10 February 1998)

Subject: Structural Fund reform

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the drafting of the new Objective 2 Regulation?

How exactly does it establish the admissibility criteria for Objective 2 areas?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission is currently developing proposals for the new regulatory framework for the structural funds for the period 2000-2006, based on its document Agenda 2000 ((COM(97) 2000 final. )) which was published in July 1997. The regulations will set out the criteria and delivery system in relation to the new objective 2. The Commission has established a programme of work leading to the adoption of its proposals on 18 March 1998 and their presentation to Parliament and Council immediately thereafter. Parliament is regularly informed on the development of the Commission's thinking with regard to structural policies in general and the new objective 2 in particular.

It is therefore too early to make a definitive statement on the new objective 2 criteria, although the basis remains that established in the Agenda 2000 document. The Commission proposes that the new objective 2 list should be determined according to simple, objective and transparent criteria. These would be used to identify the areas worst affected by changes in the industrial or service sectors, declining rural areas, urban districts in crisis and fisheries dependent areas. The final list of areas would be determined in partnership with the national authorities taking into account national priorities. For regions where the situation has improved and which no longer meet the criteria, the Commission proposes phasing-out arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0026/98 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Support for the disabled

In 1998 Austria will be host to a unique event to promote the integration of the disabled. The Special Olympics will be held in Vienna from 20 to 26 June. More than a thousand disabled adults and young people from 14 nations will be taking part in this major sporting occasion.

Will the Commission be using this event as an opportunity to do more for integration of the disabled?

Will it be able to provide financial support for these Special Olympics?

What practical measures are planned to support the disabled in 1998?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 March 1998)

The Commission has not received any application to support a Special Olympics event in Austria for the European programme for sports for people with disabilities 1998. Special Olympics are aware that applications for 1998 should have been submitted to the Commission by 1st September 1997.

The Commission is indeed active in supporting the integration of the disabled and for the 1998 programme more than 100 applications were received. The European committee on sports for people with disabilities (ECSPD), which comprises representatives from sports organisations for the disabled from all the Member States, gave advice on the applications received. The ECSPD has given a positive recommendation on 75 projects which the Commission intends to support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/98 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1998)

Subject: Free movement of persons within the Schengen area

The Schengen Agreement addresses one of the major challenges facing Europe, namely the free movement of persons within the European region. One of its goals is to abolish customs and police controls at the internal frontiers between the signatory states, without jeopardizing the maintenance of public order and national security. In contrast, controls at the external frontiers will be stepped up.

What is the Council's opinion of the practice adopted by the airline Sabena of requesting and checking passengers' national identity documents during check-in?

Answer (11 May 1998)

It is not for the Council to reply to the Honourable Member's question, which relates to the Schengen area established between certain States which are also members of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0174/98 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: Controls on imported foods

At present all foods of animal origin imported from third countries into the European Union are subject to strict controls. They can only enter the EU at a designated border inspection post; the importer is required to give 24 hours notice of arrival; the consignment must undergo the veterinary checks procedure, which includes certified levels of inspection; and the importer must pay the costs of the veterinary inspection before the consignment can obtain customs clearance. However, for foods of non-animal origin, there is no requirement for prior notification of import, with no certificated system of control and the costs of inspection fall on the enforcing authority.

Given that many foods of non-animal origin can pose a considerable risk to public health, for example many of them can contain mycotoxins, does the Commission intend to harmonize EU levels of inspection for foodstuffs of non-animal origin to the same level as that for foodstuffs of animal origin? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 April 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-0463/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)

Subject: Administration costs of the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

What level of administration fees do respective Member States charge for handling applications for the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance, and can these be indicated for the most up-to-date figures available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 March 1998)

The Commission does not have this type of information on the administrative costs of managing the compensatory allowance scheme for farmers in less-favoured areas. Such information is not contained in the legislative provisions notified by the Member States and approved by the Commission. The Commission is therefore unable to provide the data requested by the Honourable Member. In this context, it should be stressed that administrative costs are not eligible for part-financing by the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0662/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: Installation of hazardous nuclear reactor at Akkuyu

In April 1998, Turkey is due to select the type of nuclear reactor to be installed in the region of Akkuyu, which is particularly prone to the risk of earthquake and is also home to the rare, protected species of seal known as Monachus Monachus.

Turkey reportedly intends to select the Canadian reactor 'Candu' which is capable (through a particular method) of increasing the quantity of plutonium produced, creating a basis for the production of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it is not a matter of chance that this type of reactor has been installed in sensitive areas of countries such as South Korea, India, Pakistan and China. The quality and safety standards of these reactors have been severely criticized in certain quarters in the USA and Canada, while Canada gave a commitment at the Kyoto environment summit (last December) to close down seven nuclear plants of this type.

What action will the Commission take to prevent the installation of this type of reactor only a few miles outside the EU's boundaries?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 March 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to his Question E-3787/97 ((OJ C 223, 17.7.1998, p. 22. )).

The Turkish authorities require tenderers to have a proven track record in the design, construction and performance of at least two nuclear power stations, at least one of which must be suitable as a reference for the Akkuyu project. Applicants must also demonstrate their ability to manage international projects. Tenders should be submitted only by companies or organisations with sufficient financial resources to meet the commitments arising from projects of this scale.

The Turkish authorities have also called upon several consultants specialising in the technical evaluation of tenders, contract negotiation and legal and economic issues. These companies include the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Spanish company Empresarios Agrupados Internacional.

The Commission must point out that Community directives are not applicable to a plant situated outside the territory of the European Union such as that referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/98 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Lower than anticipated costs of the swine fever crisis in the Netherlands

Reports appeared recently in the Dutch press indicating that the costs of the swine fever crisis in the Netherlands would prove lower than originally expected.

1. Can the Commission indicate the cost of the swine fever outbreak for the European budget in the Netherlands and in other EU Member States where the disease occurred and, by implication, the costs for the national budgets of the Member States?

2. Does the Commission see any reason to change the approach to swine fever outbreaks in future if the 'marker' vaccines come onto the market quickly?

3. Does the Commission see any reason, following the outbreak in recent years of animal diseases such as BSE and swine fever, to change the provisions on financial compensation from the European budget?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1998)

1. The amounts paid up to 31 December 1997 are the following:

>TABLE>

These figures refer to decisions or regulations already adopted by the Commission on the basis of the information provided by the Member States concerned, funds available and evolution of disease. Therefore, the figures cannot be considered as definitive.The cost of the most recent outbreaks of classical swine fever in Germany and the veterinary expenditure which could not have been taken into consideration due to shortage of credit (estimated 100 MECU) is also not included.

The cost for national budgets of the Member States can be roughly estimated taking into account that the Commission supports about 50% of the veterinary expenditure and about 70% of the cost of the exceptional market support measures in Member States.

2. The Commission is aware that classical swine fever marker vaccines are being developed. However, no applications for registration of marker vaccines have been sent to the European medicinal evaluation agency in London. Therefore it appears unlikely that a marker vaccine will be available on the market before 12-15 months.

Moreover, data are lacking on the potential use of such vaccines in an emergency situation that are essential to amend current Community legislation regarding classical swine fever and to avoid any negative effect on trade of pigs and pork linked to the use of marker vaccines.

Therefore, in agreement with the opinion recently delivered by the scientific veterinary committee on this matter, the Commission is evaluating the possibility to support a laboratory trial aimed at evaluating the potential use of such vaccines in field conditions.

3. The Commission will consider the existing arrangement relating to financial contribution in view of its possible amendment.