ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)

With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final - 97/0119 COD - 97/0120 CNS)(1).

Can the Commission redraft and strengthen the action aimed at innovation and participation by the SMEs, refining the measures already provided for in the fourth framework programme but supplementing them with innovative, specific features aimed at promoting an entrepreneurial spirit amongst researchers and scientists and at creating an ad hoc mechanism to support the establishment of technological joint ventures to utilize the results of Community research in industry and commerce?

(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, pp. 15-16.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1623/98, E-1624/98, E-1625/98 and E-1626/98 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1998)

The Commission's proposals for the 5th framework programme for research(1) and for the specific programmes,(2) involve an integrated, multidisciplinary, multisectoral approach, where efforts are concentrated on a limited number of themes and actions and activities are geared towards major Community objectives such as employment, quality of life and making businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), more competitive.

The four activities, the specific programmes and the key actions of the fifth framework programme relate to specific objectives. The third activity focuses solely on innovation, the exploitation of results and SMEs. SME participation will also be encouraged in all the specific programmes.

The key actions are designed to address a number of major issues and problems facing the Community today, following a multidisciplinary, integrated approach geared towards results. They are designed to encourage the research and innovation dynamic, inter alia by means of demonstration activities and with significant SME participation.

Scientific and technological excellence is one of the basic priniciples underpinning Community research policy. Under the 5th framework programme calls for research proposals will be open to all individuals and organisations such as companies, SMEs, research institutes and universities.

Assessment of the programmes, provided for in Article 5 of the fifth framework programme, will take account of the general objectives and the most appropriate performance and impact indicators for each specific programme.

The Commission would reassure the Honourable Member that the fifth framework programme will be implemented and run in an efficient and transparent manner, in accordance with the established rules and criteria.

(1) COM(97) 142 final, amended by COM(97) 439 final, amended by COM(98) 8 final.

(2) COM(98) 305 and 306.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: EU funds London

Will the Commission please itemise all EU funding received in London since July 1994, including structural, social, LIFE, research and other assorted Community initiative funds, their destination, amounts, and a brief description of the projects?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Further to its answer of 4 August 1998(1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/98

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Staffing policy in the EU institutions

Do the four categories of EU staff have the same entry grade and step and the same career profile irrespective of whether they are employed by the Commission, Parliament or other EU institutions?

What percentage of staff at the Commission information offices in the European capitals are officials, temporary staff and local staff?

What is the entry grade of heads of information offices and how long on average do they occupy their posts?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

The system of staff categories laid down in Article 5 of the Staff Regulations of officials applies to all the Community institutions. The conditions governing access to each category are therefore the same for every institution.

At the time of writing the Commission offices in the Member States employ 178 officials, 5 temporary staff and 185 local staff.

The heads of these offices are appointed at grade A3 for a period of between three and six years, depending on the rules in force.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2479/98

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 1998)

Subject: Entitlement for EU citizens to vote in municipal elections in Belgium

Following the Court of Justice judgment of 9 July 1998 which found against Belgium for having failed to incorporate into national law the directive based on Article 8b(1) of the EU Treaty on the right of all EU citizens to vote in municipal elections, even if they reside in a Member State of which they are not a national, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to guarantee that all EU citizens resident in Belgium are entitled to vote in the next municipal elections, in October 2000?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 1998)

If the Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations does not take the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice judgment referred to by the Honourable Member within a reasonable time-limit, the Commission will institute the procedure provided for in Article 171 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(24 February 1998)

Subject: Consorzio Venezia Nuovo (New Venice Consortium)

Under Article 3 of Italian law No. 798/84, in the case of expenditure, projects and measures to safeguard Venice and its lagoon, the Ministry of Public Works is authorized to award a global contract covering both the planning and works to companies and/or consortia by negotiated tender, even in derogation from the regulations in force. The concession for the planning and execution of all the works provided for by the law in question has been awarded to the Consorzio Nuovo Venezia (New Venice Consortium). This global concession has, over the years, partly as a result for further laws and decrees, become a de facto monopoly for works of all kinds including regional, environmental and urban maintenance work, which could be and in fact was carried out for years by companies under normal tender procedures. This monopoly concession has been maintained even since adoption of the specific Italian law on Venice (206/95) which prohibits the global concession except in the case of legal obligations deriving from previous legislation and its effects, and since the adoption of a number of Community directives on public procurement procedures and even after the enactment of Italian legislation transposing the relevant Community directives until 1997. So as not to apply or circumvent these Community provisions, the agreements and riders to the original agreements have probably been construed as being part of the earlier agreements and hence the new agreements have been regarded as enforceable and deriving from the initial agreements or other subsequent agreements preceding the entry into force of the Community legislation (for example the 9th and 10th concessions of 1996 and the 11th, 12th and 13th concessions of 1997).

Does the Commission consider that this procedure involving concessions and subsequent agreements containing no time limits, and which might thus be manipulated so that they continue indefinitely, is compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Community directives, as set out, for instance, in the Green paper on public procurement of 27 November 1996?

Is it also lawful to give the same consortium responsibility for both the planning and execution of the works?

Answer given by MrMonti on behalf of the Commission

(27 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-1770/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: Autonomy in Northern Epirus

According to the UN Charter, autonomy is one of the inalienable civil rights of peoples. In the EU, autonomy is a common form of institution; countries such as Italy, Spain and Finland have granted fundamental rights to autonomous regions on their territory. Northern Epirus is a region of Albania whose right to autonomy has been established (as long ago as 17 May 1914 by the "Corfu Protocol") and provision made for the protection of the population's language and religion. Moreover, the Protocol was signed at the time by the plenipotentiary countries of the (present-day) EU (Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Austria and France) and by the Special Representative of Albania himself.

Will the Commission state its position on this issue, which concerns the protection of human rights in a country which desires closer relations with the EU but which has refused for years to honour the commitment that it undertook?

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

(2 July 1998)

It is not for the Commission to judge the reference made by the Honourable Member to the UN Charter or to assess, in the current Albanian context, the validity and exact scope of the 1914 Corfu Protocol granting specific rights for the autonomy of the southern part of Albania and in particular of the Greek ethnic minority in the region.

Albania, which joined the Council of Europe in 1995, has ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (including almost all of the related protocols) and in 1995 signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The High Commissioner for National Minorities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) noted in the course of a mission in 1994 that minority rights in Albania were adequately respected and that certain improvements had been made, notably in education in Greek. Following this mission, an office for minorities was set up in 1995 enabling members of minorities to file complaints. An agreement on the opening of additional Greek-language schools in certain villages in southern Albania was obtained under a friendship agreement between Albania and Greece signed in March 1996, which also set up bipartite committees for settling outstanding problems.

As part of the Community's regional policy towards certain countries of south-east Europe, including Albania, the Commission will continue to monitor political and economic developments in the countries concerned, including respect for democratic principles, human rights and the rights of minorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Infringements of the international code of conduct on baby food

Has the Commission noted the recent study of the way in which producers of baby food comply with the international code of conduct governing the marketing of baby food(1)?

What steps does the Commission intend to take now that it has emerged that producers are flagrantly disregarding the provisions of the code?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 1998)

Will the Honourable Member please refer to the answer given by the Commission to his Written Question E-908/97(2) and to Written Question E-1355/97 by Mrs Maij-Weggen(3).

(1) Published in the British Medical Journal.

(2) OJ C 319, 18.10.1997.

(3) OJ C 391, 23.12.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1028/98

by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Increased spending on the arts

The EU cultural forum on the future of European cultural programmes (29 and 30 January 1998 in the Borschette Centre) featured a discussion with the Ministers of Culture from the UK, Luxembourg and France and the Cultural Affairs Commissioner Marcelino Oreja,at which Commissioner Oreja announced that, to his way of thinking, spending on the arts should represent at least one thousandth of the total budget.

In reply to my last question to the Commission concerning the growth in the proportion of the total budget devoted to spending on the arts, the Commission mentioned a share of 0,033 % devoted to the arts for the 1998 financial year - i.e. a third of a thousandth. Since 1990 the proportion devoted to the arts has gradually been increased by an average of 0,002 %. Continuing the existing policy will mean that the target of one thousandth of the total budget referred to by Commission Oreja will be reached in approximately 20 years' time.

In the light of the foregoing: What specific action is Commissioner Oreja taking to achieve during the remaining portion of his term of office the stated target of one thousandth of the total budget being devoted to culture? How often has he discussed this problem with the Culture and Finance Ministers of the Member States since the commencement of his term of office? At how many Commission meetings since the beginning of 1995 was this issue on the agenda or was it raised?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it shares her concern as to the limited resources allocated for the Community's cultural programmes. However, as the Honourable Member is aware, on the basis of Article 128 § 4 of the EC Treaty, other Community programmes and actions have and continue to take increasing consideration of the cultural dimension of projects eligible for funding within the framework of their objectives. In this sense, total funding for culture is considerably higher than that represented by the budgetary resources allocated to the present cultural programmes, as has been clearly demonstrated in the first report on the consideration of cultural aspects in the European Community action(1) presented by the Commission in April 1996. Furthermore, this point will be further reinforced in the updated report that the Commission will soon present and which will concern the years 1996 and 1997.

The Commission would also like to remind the Honourable Member that it recently adopted its proposal for a Parliament and Council decision establishing a cultural framework programme for the years 2000-2004 with a proposed budgetary allocation of ECU 167 million in line with the ranking of priorities set in Agenda 2000. The final allocation of resources devoted to culture depends on the result of the co-decision procedure to adopt the above-mentioned framework programme.

(1) COM(96) 160 final, completed by SEC(96) 686.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/98

by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Free movement of persons

In view of a recent case brought to my attention concerning one of my constituents, whose passport was retained by a hotelier in Australia for a period exceeding twelve months, can the Commission give assurances that hoteliers in the EU Member States do not have the legal right to do the same, since that would effectively deny EU citizens their right to freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 1998)

The Commission is not aware of legislation in Member States that allows hoteliers to retain the travel documents of individuals undertaking a prolonged stay in their establishment and, in so doing, possibly giving rise to cases similar to the one mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Zero Emissions Research Initiative

The Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) Foundation aims to design corporate strategies and industrial policies based on the principle of sustainable social and economic development.

Does the Commission intend to send a representative to the forthcoming ZERI conference in Geneva?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1363/98, E-1364/98, E-1365/98, E-1366/98 and E-1367/98 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 1998)

The Japanese ZERI (zero emission) research project was launched in 1994 by the "Institute for Advanced Studies" of the Tokyo United Nations university. The Commission does not participate in the project and has no detailed information on its work programme or on the existence of a corresponding ZERI schools initiative.

In the Community research aiming at reducing emissions is carried out within the 4th Research technology and development (RTD) framework-programme(1). This research is accomplished within various specific research programmes "Environment and Climate", "Non-nuclear energy", "Industrial technologies", "Transport".

The Commission is not aware of any specific overlap between the Community programmes and the ZERI project.

In the absence of any active involvement in the ZERI project the Commission does not intend to send a representative to the forthcoming ZERI conference in Geneva.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1581/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Slate industry and preferential tariff arrangements

Will the Commission provide details of the margin of preference and customs tariff applied to EU imports of slate from each of the third countries covered by preferential tariff arrangements and say how these might develop or change in future?

Will the Commission give details of the customs tariff applied to Community slate exports to each of the countries which themselves export slate to the EU under preferential tariff arrangements?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Fish meal

Can the Commission confirm that fish meal is classified as an animal protein source and what the ramifications of this classification are?

Given that fish meal was cleared of any risk by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can the Commission explain why there is a ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant diets? Does the Commission foresee any further extension of this ban?

Has the Commission considered the effects of the ban, and any extension of it, on the fish meal industry? What studies has the Commission undertaken, firstly to prove any risk, and secondly, to ascertain the impact on the fish meal and related industries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

According to Article 2 of Directive 92/118/EEC(1), fishmeal is defined as a processed animal protein intended for animal consumption. Chapter 6 of this Directive lays down the rules for trade and imports of this product.

Decision 94/381/EC(2) prohibits the feeding of protein derived from mammalian tissues to ruminant species. Therefore, at present, fishmeal can be used in ruminant diets.

Following the international scientific conference on animal meal organised in Brussels, on 1 and 2 July 1997, by the Parliament and the Commission under the aegis of the scientific steering committee of the Community, the Commission launched a public consultation, on 14 November 1997, about the future of the Community's feed legislation and, in particular, on a possible ban on the use of all animal protein in the feeding of ruminants, on the grounds that these animals are herbivorous and therefore do not need animal protein in their diet.

This consultation aimed to provide an objective description of the present situation, and some considerations about the possible consequences of adopting different approaches.

In order to guarantee its wider diffusion, the paper resulting from this consultation was available on the Internet from 14 November 1997 and written comments were requested by 31 December 1997. A document summarising the comments received on this consultation has now been finalised and is available on the Internet. The Commission will now reflect on the measures necessary to give effect to the problems raised in the course of this consultation.

(1) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC - OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(2) OJ L 172, 7.7.1994, as last amended by Decision 95/60/EC - OJ L 55, 11.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/98

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE) to the Commission

(12 June 1998)

Subject: Local authority ban on PVC in Germany

A number of local authorities in Germany have for some time now been boycotting products containing polyvinyl chloride. Because of its versatility, PVC is used in particular in component parts in the construction industry. Its use in the building industry accounts for over 50 per cent of the PVC market in the Community.

Germany's local authorities are now issuing internal instructions that no more products containing PVC are to be purchased. In awarding public contracts, i.e. particularly when issuing calls for tenders for construction contracts, contracts are only to be awarded where PVC-free products are used. In practice, this can amount to a "local authority ban" on products containing PVC.

What is the Commission's position on these proceedings from a legal standpoint, particularly with a view to the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods, state aid and legislation on public contracts? What action does the Commission intend to take against the proceedings described?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1826/98 and E-1827/98 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it recently received a complaint from a trader regarding the policy of a large number of local authorities in Germany of instructing their staff to refrain from acquiring products containing PVC and to award construction contracts only if PVC-free products are used.

It is currently investigating the complaint in the light of the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods and of Community legislation on public procurement. It will inform the Honourable Member personally of the results of this investigation as soon as possible.