ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Notification requirement

According to Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC(1) of 28 March 1983 the Member States are required to communicate to the Commission any draft "technical" regulation within the meaning of the directive. In my view the Austrian Regulation on the avoidance and recovery of packaging waste and specific residues and the establishment of collection and recovery systems (VerpackVO 1996) BGB1 II No 232/1997 should be covered by this provision.

Is the Austrian regulation covered by the notification requirement in the Directive?

If so, when was it communicated?

If it was not, what are the legal implications of this omission?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 1998)

The two texts the Honourable Member refers to were notified to the Commission at draft stage in accordance with Article 16(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.(2)

Both were draft measures which Austria was planning to adopt in the context of Directive 94/62/EC. Pursuant to Article 16(1) of Directive 94/62/EC, the Austrian authorities were thus bound to notify them in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations(3) (which has since become Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998(4)).

The draft Decree of the Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the Family on the avoidance and recycling of packaging waste and of certain goods residues and the establishment of collection and recycling schemes (VerpackVO 1996) was first notified on 27 August 1996 (notification number 96/332/A). The adopted text was published in the Austrian official gazette (BGBl No 648/1996 of 29 November 1996).

A new version of the same Decree (VerpackVO 1997) was notified at draft stage on 1 April 1997 (notification number 97/156/A). The definitive text was published in BGBl II No 232/1997.

(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.

(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(3) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983.

(4) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3501/98

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Unilateral investment sanctions

If an EU Member State were to impose unilateral financial sanctions on Burma (on serious political grounds and as a matter of urgency under Article 73g (2) of the EC Treaty), would the Commission propose that the Council overturn the Member State's decision or bring proceedings against that Member State on the grounds of a perceived breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2119/98(1).

It is not Commission policy to answer hypothetical questions.

(1) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3993/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(21 December 1998)

Subject: Contribution payable by holders of telecommunications licences in Italy

The Community market in telecommunications networks and services has been fully competitive since 1 January 1998.

Directive 97/13/EC(1) states, inter alia, that "any fees imposed on undertakings as part of authorization procedures seek only to cover the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and enforcement of the applicable individual licences".

As a result of the recent adoption of the 1999 budget, Italy has obliged holders of licences for the installation and supply of telecommunication networks and services to pay an annual contribution calculated on the basis of a percentage, varying according to the operator concerned, of the turnover of all telecommunication services and facilities. This fee will decrease but will continue to be payable even after 2002.

Since the size of the contribution payable by Italian firms is larger than in any other Member State and is out of all proportion to the administrative costs of issuing licences, can the Commission say:

- why Italy has not come into line with European legislation;

- whether the charging of this fee does not conflict with the principles of free competition, non-discrimination, proportionality and objectivity;

- whether the Italian market and telecommunication firms operating in Italy are not being penalized, compared with other European markets, in particular with reference to the development of innovative services and the Information Society;

- what steps it intends to take to ensure compliance with Community rules;

- why it has not seen fit to follow up its stated position of 11 November 1998 vis-à-vis the Italian Government?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

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.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Subject: Riverside Housing Association, Merseyside

Can the Commission confirm that the Riverside Housing Association has received nearly £30 000 from the ESF apparently for training its own staff?

Is the Commission aware that RHAs Chief Executive is retiring early and has been given a "golden handshake" of about £200 000?

Does the Commission consider, in light of the European funding that it has received, that this Association is making best use of its ESF grants?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1998)

The Riverside Housing Association obtained £22,149 of European social fund (ESF) co-funding for one project that ran in 1997 under the 1994-1999 objective 1 programme in Merseyside. There is no indication that these funds were misused. The project involved the upgrading of the employees' skills.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/98

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE) to the Commission

(19 October 1998)

Subject: Arrangements for part-time employment following pregnancy for workers in Luxembourg

A Luxembourgish woman resident in Luxembourg can receive from the state of Luxembourg child allowance after the birth of her child even if she is employed on a part-time basis or if she stops working altogether. This allowance is covered by the child allowance scheme and is payable over two years. A Belgian frontier worker who is resident in Belgium and works in Luxembourg and whose wife is a Luxembourger has also applied for child allowance in Luxembourg on the grounds that his wife is still working part time. Luxembourg has referred to its rules whereby the child allowance is payable only to Luxembourgers or foreigners resident in Luxembourg.

1. Does this contravene Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community?

2. Is the decision of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 1996 in the case of Hoever and Zachov versus the Land of North Rhine-Westfalia applicable to this case, too, or does a new complaint have to be submitted to the Court?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1998)

In the absence of details enabling the Commission to carry out the necessary research, the Commission regrets that it is currently unable to answer the Honourable Member's question. It would therefore ask the Honourable Member to provide more details of this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Candidacy of the President of the Court of Auditors for election as a Member of the European Parliament

In view of the fact that within the European Parliament it is increasingly rumoured that Bernhard Friedmann, the President of the Court of Auditors, intends to stand for election as a German MEP representing the CSU; according to the same rumour, his intention emerged in particular during meetings held over the last few weeks; although it is specifically stated in the Treaties that the office of MEP and that of President or judge at the Court of Auditors are incompatible, nothing is said regarding the possibility of a President-in-Office standing for election,

1. Does the Commission not think that, if this rumour were to be confirmed, it would undermine the independence and the impartiality of the Court as enshrined in Article 118b of the Treaty?

2. Does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, not consider that, in view of the text of the Treaty and, in particular, Article 188b(5) thereof, and also the particular and sensitive tasks performed by the Court of Auditors, it should be impossible for members of that Court (especially the President himself) to stand for election to the European Parliament?

3. What interpretation of the letter and the spirit of the Treaties would the Commission make if the above rumour were to be officially confirmed?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1999)

It is not Commission policy to answer hypothetical questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2451/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Dumping of toxic and hazardous waste near Bilbao airport

Following a complaint filed by a number of Bizcaya town councillors about the siting of a dump for toxic and hazardous waste and a leachate treatment plant near the runways of Bilbao airport, representing a huge danger to the neighbouring areas, and in view of the scale of the work.

Could the Commission say whether:

1. the enlargement work at Bilbao airport complies with the requirements of Directive 85/337(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

2. the toxic waste dump and the leachate treatment plant comply with Directive 85/337, Directive 91/689(2) on hazardous waste and Directive 76/464(3) on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community;

3. the toxic waste dump, which is situated less than 100 metres from landing strips complies with the distances laid down in international conventions on aircraft safety;

4. Community assistance (ERDF, Cohesion Fund, etc.) was received by these projects?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 1998)

1. and 2. The Commission has received two complaints concerning the matter referred to by the Honourable Member. In investigating the complaints, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments.

The Spanish authorities recently sent extensive documentation in response. As this has yet to be studied, the Commission is not yet in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.

In the course of the investigation of the complaints, the complainants will be duly informed as to the conclusions reached after examination of the information sent by the Spanish authorities.

3. International rules on air safety fall within the competence of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The Commission is not aware of any regulations on the dumping of waste near airports. At all events there are no Community rules on the subject.

4. The projects involving the dumping of hazardous toxic waste and the leachate treatment plant near Bilbao airport were included in the operational programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the Basque Country - Objective 2, for the programming periods 1994-1996 (first phase) and 1997-1999 (second phase). However, the Spanish authorities have withdrawn the two projects in question from the above programmes. Consequently they will not receive cofinancing under this Fund or, indeed, under the Cohesion Fund.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(3) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2608/98

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Criteria governing budget headings A-3 0 and A-3 1

The headings under chapters A-3 0 and A-3 1 of the budget stipulate that, in order to qualify for the second half of their subsidies, the institutions of European interest listed therein should receive 10 % of the total cost of their activities from sources other than the European Union.

Various youth organisations have expressed concern at the Commission's failure to define clearly the exact criteria determining the resources eligible for inclusion within that 10 %.

What is the precise nature of these criteria? Could the figure of 10 % be said to include non-cash assets acquired by these organisations, be they moveable or immoveable assets?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

On the basis of the headings under Chapters A-30 and A-31, the Commission subsidises either beneficiaries' specific projects or their overall activities. In both cases, the minimum cofinancing criterion of 10 % of the budget subsidised by the Community budget applies.

In the case of specific projects, this criterion specifically refers to the budget for the project itself and not the overall activities of the beneficiaries.

Where the overall activities of beneficiaries are subsidised, the organisation's annual accounts are the official basis for calculating the cofinancing. Where the standard accounting rules are applied, duly recorded infrastructure costs are eligible for the calculation of the cofinancing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(24 November 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU funds to Upper Austria

With regard to the allocation of EU funds to the State of Upper Austria, can the Commission provide information as to:

1. the total amount of EU structural fund appropriations provided, with a breakdown by fund and by individual Community programme and/or initiative and the amount of EU funds charged to other budgetary headings since 1995 disbursed for pilot projects and other measures or as direct payments to research institutes, universities, undertakings and other bodies in the State of Upper Austria;

2. the number of jobs created or saved with the help of these funds?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3076/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(9 October 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the criteria for the growing of transgenic maize and soya at Maccarese (Rome)

Directive 90/220(1) lays down criteria designed to limit the environmental and health risks posed by the growing of transgenic organisms. According to information in the author's possession, the agricultural undertaking Sogea SpA of Maccarese (Rome), which is owned by Monsanto SpA and which is authorized to grow transgenic maize and soya, appears to have made no provision for measures to identify the experimental test. There also seems to be an area of what are presumably traditional crops much closer than the 200 metres required by directive 90/220.

Bearing in mind the danger of the characteristics induced by genetic manipulation being passed to genetically related plants or similar traditional crops, will the Commission take steps to check whether the cultivation of transgenic maize and soya at Maccarese complies with the safety criteria laid down by Directive 90/220?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 1998)

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)(2) sets out, in Articles 5 to 9 (Part B of the Directive), the provisions for undertaking a deliberate release of GMOs for research and development purposes. Implementation of these provisions is the responsibility of the national authorities.

According to information supplied by the Italian authorities, the notifications for the above-mentioned deliberate releases had been examined by the Italian committee on biotechnology and were found to be in compliance with the provisions of the Directive. It was deemed that sufficient measures had been proposed for the management of risks. In particular, for the transgenic maize, special measures were foreseen to reduce the possibility of a potential cross-hybridisation with other maize plants. This included an isolation distance of 200 metres from other cultivated maize or a detasseling of the GMOs. As an additional safety measure, six rows of traditional maize, which will be destroyed after harvest, have been planted as a pollen sink around the trial.

For the trial with the transgenic soybean, comparable provisions have been applied. Buffer rows with non-transgenic soya have been planted, but because of the low rate of outcrossing the isolation distance has been reduced to 10 metres.

The Italian authorities have informed the Commission that they organise regular inspections of Part B releases to ensure that the conditions of the consents have been complied with.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/98

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Amendment of the Staff Regulations

Homosexual EU staff do not have the same rights as their heterosexual colleagues. This is particularly the case for the rights and perks that the spouses of EU staff normally enjoy, and applies even though homosexual staff have entered into a registered partnership that corresponds to marriage in their own country.

More and more Member States - besides those that already have registered partnerships - plan to introduce such a system. The existing Staff Regulations are thus becoming more and more outdated.

1. What are the provisional conclusions of the reflection group set up for this purpose?

2. When does the reflection group expect to conclude its investigation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 1999)

Chapter 4.2 ("The impact of social change") of the final report dated 6 November 1998 by the Reflection Group on Personnel Policy, a copy of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat, comes to the following conclusion:

"As registered partnership satisfies all the de facto and de jure criteria underlying the inclusion in the Staff Regulations of special provisions for spouses (right to live together, financial interdependence, legal requirement to provide maintenance, and protection of the family in the case of the invalidity or death of officials), the Group recommends that the institution keep a close eye on developments in national legislation and be ready to amend the Staff Regulations when the time comes."
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: 1999 drugs strategy

The Cardiff Summit adopted a report on operations to combat drug abuse, including a drugs strategy for 1999 and subsequent years, and the Council and Commission were called upon to devise a blueprint for further action.

1. How will the Presidency-in-Office answer the above call?

2. What specific proposals does it intend to submit, and what progress has it already made in drawing them up?

3. An international conference on drugs will take place in Vienna on 5 and 6 November 1998. Who will represent the Union at the conference?

4. What attitude will the representatives take?

5. How will policy be worked out, and what role will Parliament play in that procedure?

Reply

(18/19 January 1999)

Discussion of the implementation of the strategy adopted at the European Council meeting in Cardiff began under the Austrian Presidency.

The discussion will be continued in 1999, notably in the light of a contribution from the Commission and the imminent entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty.

The European Union was not represented as such at the flagship event of the European Drugs Prevention Week held in Vienna on 5 and 6 November 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3574/98

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(18 November 1998)

Subject: Commission Communication concerning AIDS

I understand that the "Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the European Council for increased solidarity to confront AIDS in developing countries" was available already before the summer recess. Why has this communication not been sent to the Members of Parliament?

Can the Commission explain why they have chosen to send this Communication to the European Parliament solely "for information" and why Parliament has not been asked for its opinion?

Will the Commission ask the European Parliament for its opinion on this very important issue so that we can discuss it in the relevant committee(s)?

Can the Commission explain what has happened with this Communication since then?

Can the Commission provide information on what has been discussed in the meetings of the Council on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament for increased solidarity to confront Aids in the developing countries(1) was adopted by the Commission on 3 July 1998, whereupon all language versions were formally sent to Parliament's secretariat. It is up to the secretariat to ensure that the document is circulated internally and that members and the relevant parliamentary committees are duly informed.

As the communication is not a legislative text the Commission, in line with its normal practice, forwarded it to Parliament, as one of the intended recipients, purely "for information". It is then naturally a matter for Parliament itself to decide whether to prepare an opinion on the document, e.g. by drafting an own-initiative report and adopting a resolution.

On the substantive issue, the fact that the Commission drafted and adopted a communication for transmission to Parliament and the Council on so important a topic as Aids in the developing countries surely indicates that it is seeking the reactions of those institutions and would welcome their comments on the analysis and proposals it has put forward.

We would point out that the communication was presented in outline at the meeting of the Council working party on development cooperation on 17 July.

It was also discussed in depth at a round table meeting of Member State and Commission health and Aids experts in Brussels on 25 September. We are sending copies of the minutes of this meeting direct to you and to Parliament's secretariat.

(1) COM(98) 407 final.