ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/98

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Special EU representative for Tibet

The report of 8 July 1998 by the EU troika's human rights mission to Tibet from 1 to 10 May 1998 showed clearly that the situation in Tibet is not satisfactory. The lack of transparency concerning respect for human rights in Tibet makes it imperative, from the point of view of the European Parliament, to appoint a special representative of the European Union for Tibet. Parliament's resolution of 15 January 1998 (B4-0076/98) and the joint motion for a resolution of 13 May 1998 (B4-0511/98, B4-0537/98, B4-0538/98) both called on the Commission to appoint a special EU representative for Tibet.

Is the Commission now prepared to appoint a special EU representative for Tibet?

If so, when and with what specific remit?

If not, is the Commission prepared to enter into talks with the Council and Parliament with a view to appointing a special EU representative for Tibet?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 1998)

Promotion of human rights is one of the priorities of the EU's China policy, so the situation in Tibet features prominently on the agenda of the human rights dialogue conducted by the Union with China via the troika. The Commission for its part regularly raises human rights issues in the course of its official dealings with the Chinese authorities, most recently when Mr Santer, Sir Leon Brittan and Mr de Silguy visited from 29 October to 3 November.

The EU takes a positive approach to these matters, and has drafted guidelines for its policy on Tibet including support for a direct dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama, expert missions to Tibet, development projects and education and training measures for the people of Tibet.

The Commission believes these guidelines offer the best prospect of improving the overall situation in Tibet and ensuring transparency. It does not therefore intend at this stage to propose any additions to the list of planned measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3503/98

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 1998)

Subject: Taxi services in Denmark

Under Danish legislation on taxi services, taxi companies can only operate with a special permit issued by a local authority. Independent taxi operators must in addition be connected to a reservation office, which handles bookings and arranges for a taxi to be sent to the customer. The taxi company does not thus have direct contact with customers.

The requirement to be connected to a reservation office applies only in communes where the number of taxi licences is 10 or more. Taxi operators cannot decide to set up a reservation office themselves because that requires the approval of the Minister of Transport In many Danish provincial towns there is often only one approved reservation office, and the local authorities determine the maximum prices. Individual reservation offices have coordinated practices so that there is no price difference whichever reservation office or taxi operator is chosen.

In practice the legislative requirement to be connected to a reservation office means that the Danish taxi market is completely closed to competition between independent taxi operators.

Does the Commission consider it to be in keeping with the internal market's rules on free and equal competition for independent taxi operators to have to be connected to an approved reservation office under Danish legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2520/98

by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 1998)

Subject: Projects in Tarija, Bolivia

Can the Commission provide Parliament with an up-to-date breakdown of the finances of the projects in Tarija, Bolivia, in each of the following categories:

- improving economic access to food;

- improving physical access to food;

- improving availability of food

In addition, can the Commission inform Parliament of the administrative costs of the project, including the personnel costs for the eight directors over the past four years and the cost of transport shipped from Europe?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

The Commission has implemented a nation-wide food security programme in Bolivia, with the aim of improving economic access to food, physical access to food and availability of food. The global budget for 1996-2000 is ECU 80 million, and the programme covers the whole of Bolivia. The programme has a sectorial axis, where horizontal programmes are financed (example: national seeds programme). The other axis is territorial, and covers 78 out of the 311 local communities in the country. These communities are amongst the poorest, the total population being 800 000 persons. The territorial axis includes parts of Tarija.

The break-down of the 128 projects approved so far under the food security programme is irrigation 23 %; rural roads 35 %; training 18 %; support to agricultural production 14 % and others 10 %.

The Prodizavat is a separate agricultural development project aiming at increasing the revenue of farmers in the Tarija region. The project is managed by a project management unit, composed of two directors, a European and a Bolivian. Over the last four years, there have been two European and four Bolivian directors. The Community contribution does not cover the cost of the Bolivian co-directors.

The Community budget for European technical assistance is ECU 1,68 million and covers 4 European experts for 4 years (the European director, an agronomist, an engineer and an administrator). The Community budget has also financed the wages of a Bolivian legal counsellor and a Bolivian sociologist (ECU 0,065 million). On the other hand, the Bolivian authorities have financed a local staff of about 60 people (including the Bolivian directors).

The project has bought vehicles in Europe, given that the Community tendering rules specify that goods bought for any project under Community financing should be of national or European origin. Since Bolivia does not produce vehicles, they had to be imported in the country. The cost of vehicles is ECU 0,28 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3575/98

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE) to the Commission

(18 November 1998)

Subject: Tax-free and duty-free purchases by EU officials

1. What category of EU officials are entitled to make tax-free and duty-free purchases?

2. How does the Commission justify these exceptional provisions?

3. What level of price reduction is involved?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1998)

All officials, temporary staff or auxiliary staff holding a contract of at least one year have the right, when they first take up their duties with one of the Community institutions in Belgium, to purchase certain goods free of VAT for personal use. They enjoy this right for not more than twelve consecutive months within the two years which follow their arrival in Belgium.

The goods which may be thus purchased free of VAT and the rules governing such purchases are defined by the Belgian Ministry of Finance. Copies of the list of goods and the said rules have been sent to the Honourable Member in person as well as to Parliament's Secretariat.

Such purchases are a privilege granted unilaterally by Belgium. Neither the Commission nor any of the other Community institutions which has its seat in Belgium can exert any influence over the goods which may be purchased free of VAT or the rules which govern this arrangement.

It should be noted that both Luxembourg and Ireland grant similar privileges to Community staff when they first take up their duties in those Member States.

For your further information, I would point out that the fiscal advantages granted to officials and other servants of the Communities were recently reduced with the abolition of the tax-free petrol quotas enjoyed by senior officials and the annual allowance of duty-free alcoholic beverages and tobacco, in principle amounting to BEF 1800 and available to officials in general. Both these privileges were withdrawn by Belgium in 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3403/98

by Luis Campoy Zueco (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: New anti-drugs strategy

Can the Commission supply details of the new anti-drugs strategy introduced following the adoption at the Cardiff summit of the report on activities on drugs and drugs-related issues, including a post-1999 strategy?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1999)

The Commission is in the process of preparing a communication to the Council and the Parliament on a Union action plan to combat drugs for the years 2000-2004, as a follow-up to the Cardiff European Council conclusions.

Building on the key elements for a post 1999 drugs strategy which were endorsed at Cardiff, the new plan will provide a general framework reference for the development of a balanced, integrated and multidisciplinary approach, taking in particular into account the opportunities afforded by the coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and the conclusions of the United Nations General Assembly special session on drugs which took place in New York in June 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3236/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Late payments by the Commission

1. What is the average payment period for businesses executing contracts under PHARE and TACIS?

2. Is the Commission aware that, at the end of August 1998, a company in the Hampshire North and Oxford Euro-Constituency was suffering a cash-flow deficit of nearly £1 million from a single source, namely the European Commission?

3. Is the Commission satisfied that it will be able to comply with the forthcoming "Late Payments Directive?"

4. What measures is the Commission taking to improve its record as a late payer, with particular regard to PHARE and TACIS contracts?

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

(4 December 1998)

1. In 1998, the average payment period for contracts under PHARE and TACIS up to October has been 70,2 days, of which 52,5 are attributable to the authorising officers. Seventy-two percent of the amounts concerned have been paid within 60 days.

2. No.

3. Yes.

4. The new Joint Relex Service for the management of Community aid to non-member countries, which began operating on 1 September 1998, has undertaken to review the financial structure of and payment plans for technical assistance contracts and to align the procedures and methods for drawing up technical assistance programmes. The main result should be the shortening of the payment periods for PHARE and TACIS contracts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3366/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Electoral leave for Greek officials of the Community institutions

Greek EU officials wishing to exercise their electoral rights in their country of origin are confronted with an increasing number of problems. In particular, the provisions governing special leave for elections (and the way these provisions are interpreted by DG IX) mean that Greek EU officials wishing to vote in the two rounds of local and prefectural elections (they are required to do so under Greek law) are obliged to buy two return tickets to Greece; if, on the other hand, they take leave during the week between the two rounds of voting, they forfeit their travel leave.

Moreover, they are obliged to report in person (in the time between the two rounds of voting) to DG IX (the Commission DG responsible for personnel); this is a very onerous obligation, since they are also faced with the exhausting return air journeys between Brussels or Luxembourg and Greece which lies over 2 000 km from the above-mentioned working places of the Community institutions.

Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the difficulties facing its Greek officials and the Greeks working in the other Community institutions who travel to Greece in order to vote and what steps it intends to take to make it easier for them to exercise their electoral rights?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 1998)

The rules in force on special leave and travelling time for elections are applied uniformly to all staff. They provide for both special leave and travelling time. They are based on the principle that officials are granted the time they actually need, depending on the means of transport chosen, to go and perform their electoral duty on the date of the election and to return.

One day's special leave is therefore granted only if the election takes place on a working day. Likewise, travelling time is granted on certain conditions. For distances of over 2 000 kilometres, the time actually needed is set at 3 days (1,5 for the outward journey and 1,5 for the return journey) if the member of staff travels by car, train or boat. If the member of staff travels by plane, the travelling time allowed is 2 days (1 day for the outward journey and 1 for the return). In order to allocate the appropriate travelling time, the Commission requests copies of tickets and other supporting documents. The same conditions apply when there are two rounds of voting.

The Commission considers that the measures in place are adequate to allow all staff to exercise their electoral rights and duties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Structural Funds

The Commission is currently evaluating the own-resources system and will present its findings in a report next September.

Does the Commission intend to conduct a similar evaluation of the implementation to date of the Structural or Cohesion Funds?

Would not a thorough review of the impact to date of payments made by the Structural or Cohesion Funds provide a suitable basis for the forthcoming Council discussions on Agenda 2000, which are becoming very difficult?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Commission agrees that the contribution of the structural funds and the Cohesion fund to socio-economic cohesion should be carefully evaluated in order to ensure the most efficient use of public expenditure in the current programming period and in the future. In this spirit the Commission presented in 1996 its first report(1) on economic and social cohesion, which assessed in depth the impacts of structural fund and Cohesion fund interventions.

Those structural fund interventions with a duration exceeding three years are generally subjected to a mid-term review which may lead to modifications for the remaining part of the programming period. This evaluation is carried out in partnership between the Commission and the Member States.

The Commission is currently assessing the results of this mid term evaluation process for the objective 1 and 6 programmes as well as for the objective 2 programmes approved for a period of five years. The Commission considers the mid-term review as a preparatory element for the future programming period and will present the results in the autumn.

All projects co-financed by the Cohesion fund are subjected to a thorough ex-ante and ex-post evaluation. In addition, a study by the London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) was commissioned in 1995 with the aim of developing new techniques for estimating the socio-economic impact of financial assistance from the Fund. The results of the study point to a strong positive relationship between infrastructure and private investment, to significant long-term employment effects and to important spillovers between the regions of the cohesion countries and their neighbours. The regional income and employment effects estimated by the models presented by the LSE exceed those anticipated by traditional cost-benefit methods.

The annual reports on the Cohesion fund include extensive comment on the evaluation process. A comprehensive publication on the LSE study is in preparation.

(1) COM(96) 542 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3113/98

by Thomas Mann (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1998)

Subject: Harassment of persons travelling to and from Gibraltar

Why do the Spanish frontier police inflict excessive delays on tourists and other persons travelling between Spain and the United Kingdom, or in this instance Gibraltar, with the result that EU nationals are in effect trapped in their cars for hours on end in sweltering conditions?

What measures will be taken to remedy this unacceptable situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answers given by the Commission to Written Question E-1744/98 by Mr Mather(1), Written Question E-1404/95 by Mr Seal(2) and to the oral questions H-269/95 and H-353/95 posed by Mr Lomas and Mr Megahy respectively during question time at the Parliament's May 1995 session(3).

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 76.

(2) OJ C 213, 17.8.1995.

(3) Annex OJ 4-463, 17.5.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(16 November 1998)

Subject: Second report pursuant to Article 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC

In its answers to Written Questions E-2376/97(1) and E-0038/98(2) the Commission said "the report is scheduled to be available by the end of April 1998."

Why has the Commission not adhered to this schedule and when does it now expect to publish the second report, the original deadline for which was 27 May 1997?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1998)

As stated in the answer the Commission gave to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-38/98(3) the preparation of the second statistical report as provided by Article 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC(4) on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes was started in 1997 when it became apparent that the implementation of the agreed common set of statistical tables would not be completed before the end of 1998. The drafting of the English version of the report was completed in April 1998.

For the adoption by the Commission the report has to be available in all Community languages. Due to unexpectedly high work-load the translation of the report was completed only in October 1998. The report is now being prepared for adoption by the Commission and subsequent publication.

(1) OJ C 76, 11.3.1998, p. 102.

(2) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 20.

(3) OJ C 304, 19.10.1998.

(4) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/98

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 1998)

Subject: Millennium bug in Russia

As a consequence of the economic crisis in the Russian Federation, efforts to tackle the millennium bug, which had anything but a high priority to start with, have come virtually to a standstill. Given the large number of computer-controlled atomic power stations and other nuclear installations in Russia, the situation could well pose a serious threat to European and world safety on 1 January 2000.

1. Is the Commission aware than no serious effort is being made to tackle the millennium-bug in the Russian Federation?

2. Is the Commission aware that research by the Gartner Group shows that a relatively moderate financial commitment, estimated at some 100 million dollars, would be sufficient to fix the millennium-bug in Russia?

3. To what extent does the Commission consider it desirable for existing support in the form of participation by Russian Federation representatives in millennium-bug workshops to be supplemented by a financial contribution to tackling the Russian millennium bug, as, for example, an item in the TACIS programme?

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

(15 January 1999)

1. and 3. Work on tackling the problem is being conducted by both the nuclear industry, notably the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the public sector, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

At its last general conference the IAEA was requested by its members "to act as a clearing house and central point of contact for Member States to exchange information regarding the diagnostic and remediation action being taken at NPP's, fuel cycle and/or medical facilities which use radioactive materials to make these facilities year 2000 ready". In response to this request, the IAEA launched a special project to address the millennium bug problem. In November 1998, the IAEA prepared a guidance document on identifying, correcting and testing of equipment and on contingency planning. It will hold meetings early in 1999 on the application of this guidance document.

The Commission recognises the leading role being played by the IAEA and seeks to contribute to these international efforts to address the issue in the New Independent States (NIS) and the Central European Countries (CEC).

It is in that context that the Commission will focus its efforts primarily on promoting awareness of the issue notably among nuclear regulators. A meeting of the Concert group of senior nuclear regulators from the Community, CEC and NIS countries will be held shortly.

2. The Commission is assessing the research by the Gartner Group mentioned by the Honourable Member and will inform her direct of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3551/98

by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission

(1 December 1998)

Subject: Further Turkish threats against Cyprus

During his recent visit (5 November 1998) to the Turkish-occupied northern sector of Cyprus, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Yilmaz, reiterated in a joint press conference with the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, that any movement on accession negotiations with Cyprus would meet with the "response" of the incorporation of the occupied territories into Turkey.

Will the Commission - which is also engaging in legal contortions in a bid to provide Turkey with EU funding - say whether and in what way it intends to respond to these threats and whether it will continue to allow a third country to interfere, particularly in such a manner, in negotiations between the Union and an independent republic which is a member of all the major international organizations?

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

(18 December 1998)

The Commission is familiar with the statements referred to by the Honourable Member. As the Honourable Member is aware, Mr Denktash and President Demirel had already signed a joint declaration with a view to gradually integrating the northern part of the island of Cyprus with Turkey, back in January 1997. In July 1998, Turkey and the northern part of the island also signed an association agreement.

In its "Regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession", adopted on 4 November 1998, the Commission gave its opinion on the statements and measures referred to above, namely that they "[were] incompatible with international law as expressed in the relevant UN resolutions, to which the European Union fully subscribes;" the resolutions in question were based on the setting up of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. In the report, the Commission stated the view that "the good-offices mission conducted by the UN Secretary-General with the backing of the UN Security Council and the European Union must have the active support of all the interested parties."

Substantive accession negotiations with Cyprus began on 10 November 1998, in accordance with the agreed timetable. The Commission hopes that the Turkish Cypriot representatives will respond positively to the Greek Cypriot party's proposal that they join the negotiations.

The Commission shares the Council's view that "progress towards accession and towards a just and viable solution of the Cyprus problem will naturally reinforce each other."