ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1106/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (8 April 1998)

Subject: Transparency of procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union concerning infringements of Community law

The European Parliament, various non-governmental organizations and professional bodies have repeatedly voiced the need for greater transparency in the Commission's decisions taken under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union. Although the Commission has recently made some moves towards greater transparency, secrecy is still the ruling principle for letters of formal notice.

1. What are the reasons that prevent the Commission from applying the transparency principle at the stage when a letter of formal notice is sent?

2. Does the Commission intend to broaden the application of the transparency principle to include the stage at which a letter of formal notice is sent?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)

The purpose of letters of formal notice ('Article 169 letters') is, as stated in Article 169 itself, to give the Member State the opportunity to submit its observations on the charges made against it. When sending out such letters, the Commission does not, as a rule, publicise the fact. Since at that stage the Commission has not yet definitely established that there has been any infringement, any publicity would be premature and could jeopardise the dialogue with the Member State, making it more difficult to subsequently resolve any infringement. In other words, Article 169 letters must be clearly distinguished from reasoned opinions, in which the Commission sets out its final position and which are usually publicised.

There are, however, two exceptions to this procedure. It does not apply:

- where Member States have failed to notify the Commission of national measures implementing directives or have failed to comply with rulings of the Court of Justice; this is because the matters are already in the public domain;

- where the Commission decides that publicity is necessary because the issue is already being publicly discussed and there is a need to stop false rumours spreading, in which case the decision to go public or not is taken on a case-by-case basis.

It should also be noted that where the infringement procedure has been triggered by a complaint, the party who made the complaint is kept informed at each stage in the procedure, including the sending of the Article 169 letter.

It goes without saying that the Commission is always prepared to respond to parliamentary questions on specific cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1847/98 by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission (5 June 1998)

Subject: Invitation to tender of 23 February 1998 for the supply of breeding cattle to Bosnia- Herzegovina (Ref. IA:D-1:Hdl D(98))

1. With regard to animal health, the above-mentioned invitation to tender specifies that the animals selected for Bosnia-Herzegovina should be tested for tuberculosis 60 days before shipment and for other diseases 30 days before shipment. Is the Commission aware that animals are being selected without any tests for tuberculosis being required for the animal health certificate and that blood tests 30 days before shipment are no longer being carried out?

2. The tender specifications require bulls to be progeny-tested and proof that cows have produced 4 800 kg and 5 300 kg of milk in their first and second lactations respectively. Is the Commission aware that this requirement is no longer being applied or has been relaxed, so that cows have been selected which produced as little as 4 200 kg of milk during their first and only lactation, and/or milk production of 4 500 kg and 4 700 kg has been required in the case of second and third lactations?

3. Besides blood tests, the animal health requirements specify that at least 40 animals must be assembled for presentation to the selection committee. This means that exporters have to keep animals in special lairage for at least 60 days longer than is normal, which is very costly. Does the Commission take the view that this measure is still necessary for the conduct of veterinary controls?

4. In the invitation to tender, the breed is stipulated as 'red and white dual-purpose'. Is the Commission aware that farmers in Bosnia-Herzegovina would mainly like to buy Simmentals, but that this invitation to tender discriminates precisely against such breeds?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 June 1998)

The research undertaken by the Commission to answer the Honourable Member's question has revealed that this is a very extensive and complex matter. More detailed investigations are necessary, involving a number of departments. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of these investigations once they are completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0957/98 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE), Kirsi Piha (PPE), Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) and Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998)

Subject: Renewed imposition by Russia of charges on foreign trucks

For more than a month, the Russian authorities have been harassing foreign truck drivers by compelling them to purchase GSM telephone and CB radio licences. If a driver does not have the required licence, his equipment is either broken or confiscated. The Finnish authorities know of several cases, inter alia in the Novgorod and Karelia regions. Licence problems have also arisen at the northern borders of Ukraine and Belarus.

According to the Finnish authorities (Ministry of Transport), Russia participated in the negotiations on an international agreement (European Radio Communication Committee decision 1/12-95 on the free circulation of radio equipment in CEPT member countries (ERC/DEC/(95)01)), which permits mobile communication equipment to be taken across borders without any special payment. However, Russia has not ratified the agreement.

What will the Commission do to ensure that Russia ratifies the agreement it has negotiated and ceases its arbitrary and entirely unilateral levying of charges on trucks from EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1998)

The recent difficulties experienced by road hauliers will be looked into more closely to see whether or not they conflict with the obligations which Russia accepted under the partnership and cooperation agreement. On this point, I would refer to a separate set of problems experienced by Community hauliers to do with implementation by Russia of the TIR convention on the international carriage of goods by road, which is now the subject of ongoing talks with the Russian authorities in an attempt to reach a satisfactory settlement.

In any event, Russian businesses have already reached roaming agreements with European GSM operators and so it would be at odds for the Russian authorities to impose restrictions on the use of GSM terminals in their country.

The Commission is fully behind moves towards the free movement of radiocommunications equipment in Europe as it is fully in line with the goals of the single market. The decision adopted on 1 December 1995 by the ECPT, the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (made up of 43 countries including the 15 EU Member States), to which the Honourable Member refers, is a significant step in this direction.

Returning to the question in hand, it should be noted that ratification and implementation of the decision by the European Radiocommunications Committee (ERC) of 1 December 1995 on the free movement of radiocommunications equipment throughout the ECPT countries is a matter solely for national governments, including Russia.

However, the Commission is willing to try to encourage the Russian government to ratify this decision in the relevant fora.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/98 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council (8 June 1998)

Subject: Respect for human rights in Mexico

According to Amnesty International, there has been an increase in the number of people 'disappearing' in Mexico over the last four years. Most of the disappearances have taken place on the pretext of suppressing revolutionary uprisings and cracking down on drugs trafficking, whereas the victims were members of peaceful organizations, indigenous communities, students and teachers.

Having regard to the conclusion of the interim agreement on trade and trade-related issues between the EU and Mexico, and the 'democratic clause' of that agreement, what measures will the Council take to ensure respect for human rights in Mexico?

Answer (20 July 1998)

1. The Council wishes first of all to inform you that, in its declaration of 24 December 1997 on the Actal massacre, the Presidency of the Union gave a reminder that the EU and the United States of Mexico had recently signed a cooperation agreement in which the two parties undertook unreservedly to respect democratic principles and fundamental human rights and the principles of the rule of law.

In the context of an informal ministerial meeting between the Troika of the European Union and Mexico which took place in Panama on 12 February 1998, the Mexican Minister took the opportunity to provide information on the measures taken by her Government, including those regarding respect for human rights, to overcome the political problems the country was facing. The Mexican Minister also observed that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the principles of democracy and political pluralism formed the basis of relations between the EU and Mexico, a view with which the EU Ministers concurred.

At the 54th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the Union launched an appeal to the Mexican Government for it to put a swift end to impunity, for example in cases where police officers were involved in torture or other crimes. The Union also expressed its support and encouragement to the National Commission on Human Rights in Mexico and to local NGOs to continue their work of defending and promoting human rights.

2. The Council also wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the Interim Agreement on trade between the EU and Mexico, which will enable the process of trade liberalisation to be launched, entered into force on 1 July 1998. The first Joint Council meeting was held on 14 July 1998, alongside the General Affairs Council. The Agreement is the ideal framework in which to continue the dialogue begun with the Mexican authorities on all questions of mutual interest and in particular the human rights situation. The Council will not fail to reiterate the importance of respect for human rights, which constitutes one of the pillars of the Agreement in question, whenever appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/98

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen, North Rhine-Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Solingen in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the Commission indicate:

1. the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Solingen from other budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or - as direct allocations - universities, research establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2. the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Supplementary answer

given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98(1).

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/98 by Rijk van Dam (I-EDN) and Frits Castricum (PSE) to the Commission (18 March 1998)

Subject: Financing the infrastructure of the port of Zeebrugge

According to the newspaper De Financieel Ekonomische Tijd of 31 January 1998, the Flemish Government is considering investing BF 1.8 billion in the port of Zeebrugge in order to enable the Swedish paper producer Stora to establish itself there. As well as the financing of the port infrastructure, this investment covers the acquisition of a 'lash-ship', a motorized dock needed for the maritime transport of inland waterway vessels.

Can the Commission say what facilities the port of Zeebrugge has made, or will make, available for the development of a distribution centre for the benefit of the Swedish firm Stora and to what extent the Flemish Government and/or other governments will be involved in this project?

Does the Commission consider the support mentioned in the previous paragraph to be in keeping with the principles of fair competition?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable that a 'lash-ship' should be counted as part of the port infrastructure even though it operates outside the port?

Can a port make a 'lash-ship' available to customers without charging them the full price for its use?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1998)

The Commission is not aware of any planned investments in the port of Zeebrugge for the development of a distribution centre for the Swedish paper producer Stora, nor has it received information about any involvement of the Flemish or any other governments in such a project.

Where public investments favour certain operators rather than others, they are considered to be aid, but may benefit if certain conditions are met, from the exemptions provided in the EC Treaty.

The Commission will request information from the Belgian authorities on the basis of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty concerning the points raised by the Honourable Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/98

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: European Central Bank

Pursuant to Article 109a(2)(a) of the EU Treaty the Executive Board of the European Central Bank is to comprise the President, the Vice-President and four other members. Paragraph 2(b) states that they are all to be appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States at the level of Heads of State or Government, on a recommendation from the Council, after it has consulted the European Parliament and the bank's Governing Council.

Would the Commission say how the selection procedure is to work, so as to ensure that suitable candidates are elected and that there is a balance amongst the various nationalities?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

The EC Treaty provides that the members of the executive board shall be appointed from among people of recognized standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters by common accord of the governments of the Member States at the level of heads of state or government.

The procedure leading to the appointment starts with a recommendation from the Council. In its recommendation the Council takes into account that the nominees must be people of recognized standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters. The Parliament and the governing council of the European central bank (ECB) are consulted on the recommendation from the Council. When the ECB is being established, i.e. concerning the first executive board, the European monetary institute (EMI) council takes the role of the ECB council (Article 109a (2) of the EC Treaty, Article 50 European system of central banks (ESCB) Statute). Both the Parliament and the EMI council or the ECB governing council, respectively, give their opinion on whether the nominees fulfil the above-mentioned requirements.

The Commission has no formal role to play in this procedure.

It is to be noted that the heads of state or government at their meeting on 2 May 1998 stated that they will give appropriate weight and consideration, according to a balanced principle of rotation, in their future decisions under Article 109a (2) of the EC Treaty, to the recommendations for nationals of Member States which do not provide members of the executive board appointed in accordance with Article 50 of the ESCB Statute.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/98

by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 March 1998)

Subject: European framework for foresty certification

There is growing pressure within the market for the introduction of various forestry certification systems. There is a danger that, because of their competitive position, the EU Member States may be compelled to adopt in haste a certification system which aspires to a monopolistic position and is not appropriate to all the various circumstances. The EU's forestry industry would be placed in a weaker position than others as a result.

In its resolution on the forestry strategy, the European Parliament called on the Commission to develop a certification system which is internationally recognized, transparent, voluntary and non-discriminatory and which moreover takes account of the specific ecological, biological and socio-economic characteristics of each country, including forest ownership patterns. (Thomas report)

1. What will the Commission do to accelerate the establishment of a certification framework of the kind proposed by Parliament, the formulation of which should take adequate account of the general views of the forestry industry?

2. Will the Commission ensure that, according to the certification framework adopted under the auspices of the EU, national certification systems are treated as equal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 1998)

The Commission is monitoring current developments with regard to forestry certification, including the aspects concerned with markets for forestry products. While continuing dialogue with all the parties concerned, the Commission is also considering whether it would be appropriate in practical and legal terms to take a Community initiative in this area. Depending on the outcome of its assessment, it will make appropriate proposals as part of its response to Parliament's resolution on the European Union's forestry strategy.

The Commission would also request the Honourable Member to refer to its answer to Written Question No E-164/98 by Mrs Pollack on systems of forest certification.(1)

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 31.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0839/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Systematic use of seasonal contracts by southern Italian motorway building firms

For the past ten years or more, southern Italian motorway building firms have continued to recruit workers under seasonal contracts. Although there are still staff shortages in some sectors, the number of "casual labourers" has risen above four hundred. Since 1992, while they have been awaiting a final contract, they have continued to work for just three months a year without the benefit of social security contributions, incentives, or settlement at the end of each quarter. Moreover, because they have spent too long waiting for a proper contract, many of them have reached an age at which they have no prospect whatsoever of finding a job in any of the normal ways.

The firms in question resort to such practices even though they have obtained and are still receiving the Community funding provided for under European Regional Development Fund programmes to finance the expansion, reorganization, and modernization of motorway networks. It follows that such funding should enable the firms to recruit employees under permanent contracts and, at any rate, curb the policy of seasonal recruitment.

Can the Commission check whether the firms concerned are entitled to hire workers on a seasonal basis when they are benefiting from the plethora of money and advantages designed to combat southern Italy's endemic unemployment?

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

(24 April 1998)

This is not a matter for the Commission. The structural funds regulations contain no specific requirements in respect of the type of contract used to employ those engaged on the construction or management of infrastructure projects cofinanced by the funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1654/98

by Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission

(18 May 1998)

Subject: Open competitions COM/A/8/98, COM/A/9/98, COM/A/10/98, COM/A/11/98 and COM/A/12/98

The Commission is currently holding open competitions, for the first time since 1993, for categories A8 (for graduates who completed their studies after 4 May 1995 and have no professional experience) and A7/A6 (for graduates with three years' professional experience).

This selection procedure thus targets graduates from the Member States with little or no professional experience.

Is the Commission aware that in setting these criteria it is excluding many potential applicants from Austria and other Member States? This particularly affects graduates who completed their studies immediately before 4 May 1995 but, who owing to the high rate of unemployment among young graduates in Europe, because of completing their military service, or for other reasons, have not been able to obtain the professional experience necessary to participate in the A7/6 selection procedure?

How does the Commission justify these criteria, and in particular its restriction of participation in the A8 competition by requiring studies to have been completed after a certain date?

Does the Commission propose to drop this requirement for current and future selection procedures and to postpone the deadline for applications for the COM/A/8/98 and COM/A/11/98 competitions accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question P-1350/98 by Mr Caccavale(1).

(1) See page 117.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/98

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission

(9 March 1998)

Subject: New Argentinian fisheries law and EU-Argentina fisheries agreement

On 12 January 1998 the Republic of Argentina adopted a fisheries law which is to enter into force three months after its adoption. That law contains a number of articles which radically change the rules governing joint ventures by fixing the number of indigenous crew members, raising levies and setting new conversion coefficients for hake, without putting forward any arguments to justify such action. As the Commission itself has acknowledged, these new rules do not in any way comply with the terms under which the EU-Argentina agreement was signed and will lead to a drastic reduction in the profitability of Community enterprises, as well as in the number of jobs.

What steps is the Commission taking and what further action is it planning vis-à-vis the Argentinian authorities to ensure that they comply with the agreement, and what has been the outcome of its action to date?

Are there not grounds for holding in this case that compliance with the international obligations entered into takes precedence over a state's domestic legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 1998)

The Commission is following changes in Argentine legislation closely. The possible impact of such changes on joint ventures established in Argentina under the fishing agreement has been raised with the Argentine authorities on several occasions. With this in mind, a joint working group was set up to consider the agreement, including the new Argentine legislation. The working group has already met twice, in Buenos Aires on 9 and 10 February 1998 and in Brussels on 9 and 10 March 1998, and this work will be continued within the Joint Committee at its meeting scheduled for early May.

As regards the primacy of international obligations over domestic legislation, Article 67 of the new Argentine law stipulates that the latter applies without prejudice to Argentina's rights and obligations in this area under the international treaties to which it is a signatory.