ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0147/98 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Slot allocation at Schipol Airport, Amsterdam

As a result of complaints about noise pollution, the Netherlands Government last year took a decision, under Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 ((OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1. )) to declare Schipol over capacity and to reduce by 10 000 the number of slots available.

Many regional airports, such as Southampton Airport in the UK, were badly affected by this decision. Southampton has lost all five of its daily slots at Schipol. Regional airports which are able to offer regular flights to major international airports make an enormous contribution to the regional economy.

A coordinator will now be appointed to allocate slots at Schipol on a non-discriminatory basis.

What provisions does the Commission have in place to monitor this slot allocation, in particular to ensure that regional airports are adequately catered for and to make information about its monitoring process available to the public?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)

The allocation of slots at congested Community airports is, under the rules of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, the responsibility of a coordinator to be appointed by the responsible Member State. In carrying out this task, the coordinator is assisted by a coordination committee, composed of air carriers, the airport authorities and air traffic control representatives, acting in a consultative capacity.

As a result of a decree of the Dutch Minister of Transport adopted on 13 January 1998, Schiphol airport has been subject to full coordination from the beginning of the winter season 1997-1998. However, the Commission understands that airlines' winter schedules, as cleared at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) scheduling conference, continue during the winter season. The Commission has not received any formal notification of any slot withdrawals during the current winter season as a result of overcapacity.

The coordination committee concerned may decide to include considerations relating to regional services in the coordination process. In addition, the Member State concerned may decide to impose public service obligations in relation to regional services and reserve the necessary slots for that purpose. The Commission, however, has not been given legal powers in any of these specific matters.

The Regulation obliges the coordinator to act in a non-discriminatory manner and to provide information to all interested parties and the Commission monitors the application of the Regulation. If there is evidence that its provisions relating to non-discrimination and to information are not being respected the Commission will use its powers to intervene.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0169/98 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Council (28 January 1998)

Subject: Map of the EU on the euro coins and failure to differentiate two Member States

The information and publicity material produced by the European Monetary Institute concerning the euro (e.g. the recently distributed 1998 calendar) has included designs of euro coins showing the EU map in such a way as to distinguish all the Member States - with the exception of Portugal and Spain, which are lumped together as if they were a single country. This error (for it can only be an error) has been reported in the Portuguese media (see the 16 January 1998 issue of the newspaper 'O Independente'), and the Council is no doubt aware of the seriousness and sensitiveness of the matter.

The cooperation procedure for the adoption of a Council regulation on the denominations and technical specifications of the euro coins is now under way; Parliament has adopted two resolutions (on 6 November and 17 December 1997), without, however, making any reference to this error.

Can the Council state what action it intends to take to correct this error and avert its consequences, and what action or actions it intends to promote so as to alert public opinion to the matter and remedy or alleviate those consequences which it is now too late to prevent?

Answer (30 March 1998)

Under the Treaty, the Council, not the EMI,l is competent to harmonize the denominations and technical specifications of euro coins (Article 105a(2) of the Treaty).

In completing the cooperation procedure with the European Parliament, the Council confirmed, on 19 January 1998, its agreement on the common position with a view to adopting a Regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins, after having examined the European Parliament's second-reading amendments. The Regulation will be formally adopted after confirmation of the Member States which are adopting the euro.

On the other hand, the decision on the design of the common side of euro coins follows a different procedure: by an intergovernmental agreement all Member States approved, first in the Amsterdam European Council and most recently alongside the Ecofin Council meeting on 17 November 1997, the final design of that common side.

The design referred to above shows Spain and Portugal as two separate geographical entities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0035/98 by Antonio Graziani (PPE) and Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EAGGF funds to an extremist organization

Is the Commission aware of the reports in the Hamburg weekly 'Die Woche' that in October 1996, 225 000 marks were allocated from the EAGGF to a 'company for biological anthropology, eugenics and behaviour studies', which, according to the German newspaper, is run by Jurgen Rieger, a well-known neo-Nazi?

This group runs an agricultural centre in the south of Sweden and, according to the newspaper, is one of the organizers of the 'Hentendorg weeks', an extremist event.

If these reports are true, does the Commission consider it morally acceptable and legally possible for right-wing extremist activities to be financed by means of a dubious interpretation of Community laws and regulations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0034/98 and E-0035/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-4231/97 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz ((OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 138. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/98 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission (2 February 1998)

Subject: Dresser-Rand

Is the Commission aware that the Dresser-Rand Company based in Wythenshawe, United Kingdom, is to transfer its production to Le Havre in France with the loss of 300 jobs from an ERDF Objective 2 area?

Can the Commission investigate whether this move resulted from illegal subsidies or sweeteners paid to the company by the French authorities?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1998)

The Commission has taken note of the question put by the Honourable Member. It has already responded in a positive manner, by contacting the French authorities to ensure that Community rules on state aid are being complied with.

It will inform the Honourable Member as soon as possible of the findings of its investigations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 February 1998)

Subject: Exclusion of producers from compensation

In its reply to my Question No E-1774/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 94. )) on producers ineligible for compensation, the Commission states that it is investigating the matter in the Member State in question (Greece). Will the Commission now say whether, following the investigations it has carried out, the Member State has correctly interpreted the terms of Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1. )) in excluding from the programme of compensation 'any person, and members of their family, who have been convicted or are awaiting prosecution for offences under public criminal law, before their release or before final judgment is passed'?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 March 1998)

Over the past few months Greece has notified the Commission under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty of several compensation measures for losses suffered by farmers because of natural disasters (floods, hail, fire, heavy snowfall, etc).

Conformity of such measures is examined under the terms of Article 92(2)(b) of the EC Treaty. To apply that provision, the Commission drew up a framework requiring a minimum intensity of damage to aid recipients and stipulating that excessive compensation must not be paid for damage incurred. Within that framework, restriction of the aid to a region, crop or type of farmer is a political choice for which responsibility is borne entirely by the national authorities and this cannot be challenged under Articles 92 to 94 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Council (11 February 1998)

Subject: New cases of arbitrary action by Turkey in the occupied territories

The UK presidency is faced with the additional task of beginning negotiations with the countries earmarked for accession including Cyprus. Will the Council say whether it is aware of the following:

1. Allegations that the Turkish occupying forces are selling off the dwellings of Greek Cypriots in the occupied town of Kythrea, and, indeed, placing advertisements in the British press for this purpose; and

2. Italian press reports that the Turkish mafia has opened banks in the occupied part of Cyprus for banking operations involving money from illegal immigration, drugs-trafficking and smuggling? The same publications claim that state officials and Turkish politicians are involved?

If so, what action does it intend to take to address this situation?

Answer (11 May 1998)

The Council is unaware of the information referred to by the Honourable Member.

With regard to the accession negotiations with Cyprus, these began, as with the other five applicants, on 31 March 1998. They are based on the principle of complete acceptance by the applicant countries of the European Union acquis. The acquis comprises a number of measures in the area of justice and home affairs, including cooperation in combating drugs and organized crime, and the strengthening of the fight against illegal immigration.

The Council would point out that the European Union's position is that the accession negotiations with Cyprus will make a positive contribution to finding a political solution to the Cyprus question, by means of the talks under the aegis of the United Nations. The European Union welcomed the offer made by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to include Turkish Cypriot representatives in the delegation negotiating the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. It regrets that the Turkish Cypriot community's response to this offer has so far been negative and reiterates the importance it attaches to the involvement of Turkish Cypriots in the accession process, in accordance with the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council. The Presidency and the Commission will pursue the necessary contacts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0013/98 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Unauthorized release of Monsanto sugar beet in the Netherlands

There are reports that two tons of sugar beet from field trials in the Netherlands, which had not been approved for marketing for any purpose, were mixed with conventional crops and entered the food chain as refined sugar via the Dutch Co-operative Sugar Company. The pulp has reportedly been used for animal feed.

Can the Commission explain:

1. How this unauthorized release happened?

2. What checks and controls were in place and how they were breached?

3. What emergency measures have been taken to retrieve the contaminated sugar supply and the pulp and whether these corresponded with the emergency response plans contained in the consent application?

4. What warning notices have been given to food processors, retailers and animal feedstuff suppliers?

5. Whether any other such unapproved releases have been reported by any Member State?

6. What new controls the Commission will recommend to avoid a repetition of such unauthorized releases?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 March 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0212/98 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (11 February 1998)

Subject: Delays in ratifying the Agreement amending the Fourth Convention of Lomé

Could all European Member States who have not done so make a commitment to ratify, without any further delay, the Agreement amending the Fourth Convention of Lomé, given that continued delays threaten to interfere with the operation of the Centre for the Development of Industry (CDI) and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly?

Answer (11 May 1998)

The Council is happy to be able to announce to the Honourable Member that all the Member States have now ratified the Fourth Convention of Lomé, as revised by the Mauritius Agreement of 4 November 1995.

Pursuant to Article 360(1) of the revised Convention, the latter will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification of the Member States and of at least two thirds of the ACP States, and of the act of notification of the conclusion of the Convention by the Community. This condition has now been fulfilled both by the ACP States and by the fifteen Member States. At its meeting on 27 April 1998, the Council adopted the Decision concerning the conclusion of the Agreement amending the Fourth Convention of Lomé. That revised Convention will therefore enter into force on 1 June 1998.

With regard to the Centre for the Development of Industry (CDI) and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly, on 19 December 1997 the ACP-EC Council of Ministers adopted the necessary provisions for their functioning pending entry into force of the Second Financial Protocol to the Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0135/98 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (23 January 1998)

Subject: Erosion and loss of fertile soil

In some southern parts of the European Union soil erosion is occurring on an alarming scale, with up to 50 tonnes of fertile soil per hectare being lost. Each centimetre of fertile soil needs 100 years to regenerate.

Does the Commission intend to strengthen its aid programmes in order to tackle soil erosion and does the common agricultural policy include any provision for encouraging less harmful farming methods?

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

The Commission is aware that many agricultural and rural areas of the Community, particularly in the south, are threatened by soil erosion and that special measures are needed to encourage soil retention and reduce erosion.

The following Community aid schemes are already being used for this purpose.

One of the measures accompanying the reform of the common agricultural policy, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )), concerns methods of agricultural production compatible with the requirements of environmental protection and maintenance of the countryside in order to avoid the deterioration of the soil.

Thus the Spanish programme includes the specific measure 'Combating erosion', the Portuguese programme the measure 'Systems of non-irrigated cereal growing', which includes cultivation techniques to reduce the effects of erosion, and the measures in the Italian programmes cover various methods, techniques and codes of agricultural practice for soil conservation. In addition, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 19921 contains measures for the afforestation of arable land and to improve wooded areas on farms. Particularly in Spain, these measures can constitute an important instrument for the conservation of the soil and the balance of water in the soil.

Of the 500 000 hectares of wooded area on 30 April 1996, more than half was in the southern Member States, including 238 000 hectares in Spain,.

The Community support frameworks for the Objective 1 regions and single programming documents for the Objective 5(b) areas include part-financing from the Structural Funds for measures to combat erosion and desertification proposed by the Member States, in particular in the Mediterranean regions.

Thus, 15% of the contribution of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - Guidance Section for part-financing Objective 1 in Spain is allocated to the measures to combat erosion. The expenditure envisaged for 1994-99 is ECU 450 million.

In addition, the Cohesion Fund part-finances projects to improve the environment by reducing erosion. The amount paid to Spain and Portugal in 1993-95 was ECU 202 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/98 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (29 January 1998)

Subject: Subsidy to the Swedish Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavioural Research

Can the Commission confirm the truth of the report in the German weekly 'Die Woche' to the effect that in October 1996 it paid a subsidy of DM 225 000 to the Swedish Society for Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavioural Research for its ecological/agricultural activities?

If so, had the Commission made prior inquiries concerning the society's organizers, and was it aware that the society's director was a member of a group of neo-Nazi associations?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0034/98 and E-0035/98 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 February 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-4231/97 by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz ((OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 138. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/98 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (17 February 1998)

Subject: Violation by the United States authorities of rights guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on consular relations

Between 60 and 100 foreign nationals have been condemned to death in the United States of America and are currently awaiting execution. At least 8 of these are citizens of Member States of the European Union. Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on consular relations, to which the United States is a signatory, every foreign national should in such circumstances be given access to his or her consul. Few of the condemned prisoners have been given such access.

As the Commission is committed to raising human rights issues during trade negotiations and in other appropriate fora, will it be doing so in relation to this clear violation of both human rights and civilized behaviour?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 March 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 P-0276/98 by Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (ELDR) to the Commission (5 February 1998)

Subject: European Union's short-sighted export policy a serious obstacle to the export of agricultural products, particularly cheese

The way in which the European Union's manages the export of agricultural products to countries outside the Union has stifled opportunities for its long-term export operations. Its short-sighted export policy, keeping exporters uncertain whether they will be granted export licences, can easily backfire, forming an obstacle to trade and reducing export prices. This is a particular problem for products which do not improve with keeping. Cheese is an important export product for the EU, and its long-term export prospects have already been harmed more than enough by the GATT rules among other factors. Policy on the export of cheese creates a vicious circle. When the granting of export licences is interrupted, stocks grow and the need to export increases. This in turn can lower export prices, which is not in the EU's interest either.

Three different categories of export aid are currently paid: for exports to Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe, for those to the USA and for those to the rest of the world. The European Union should pursue a longer-term export policy for its agricultural products, so that the EU's exports can be more flexible and the highest possible market price be obtained for them, which would also be of economic benefit to the EU.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve the flexibility, and reduce the short-termism of the EU's exports of agricultural products, and cheese in particular, so that it can obtain the best possible price for its exports?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 March 1998)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to Written Question E-2836/96 by Mr Viola ((OJ C 91, 20.3.1997. )) in which the Commission set out the constraints imposed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and explained what instruments it had available to respect its commitments under this Agreement and to provide maximum safeguards for Community exports of milk products. The criteria for differentiating and, if necessary, abolishing the refunds for certain destinations were also set out there. In the light of experience, differentiation was introduced in three areas of refunds for cheese to limit as far as possible the consequences of the measures imposed by the GATT constraints.

Since this geographical differentiation was introduced on 1 October 1997, no new measure has proved necessary. Consequently, the Commission notes with satisfaction that the measure has contributed decisively to achieving the stability in refunds for cheese which the Honourable Member desires.

For the longer-term prospects, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the 'Agenda 2000' communication ((COM (97) 2000 final. )) and to the proposals which will result from this.