do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2981/97 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Radioactive pollution from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Britain
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: Arctic Ocean, United Kingdom, application of EU law, environmental protection, radiation protection, radioactive pollution

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/121

(98/C 117/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2978/97

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(15 September 1997)

Subject: Progress of CSF for Greece

The CSF for Greece has reached the half-way point of the period of application and is now at a critical stage. Will
the Commission give details of the amounts and percentages of the funds earmarked for the CSF so far disbursed

1. 

in relation to the budget for the whole period of application (1994-1999)

2. 

in relation to the budget from the beginning of the period up to the present time (September 1997), and

3. 

in relation to the budget for 1997 alone (appropriations disbursed for the first 8 months of the year compared
to the budget for the whole year),

both in global terms and with regard to the national and regional sections of the CSF and the Cohesion Fund?

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

(16 October 1997)

Payments from the Structural Funds for the Greek Community support framework (1994-97) until end August
1997 were as follows (ECU million):

Total
paid

1994-99
%

1994-97
%

Regional operational programmes
National operational programmes

1 764.8
3 121.9

TOTAL

4 886.7

39.1
33.4

35.3

62.4
56

58.2

1997

paid

158.9
323.7

482.6

%

21
17.2

18.3

Payments  from  the  Cohesion  Fund  are  made  in  response  to  applications  from  the  national  authorities  as  the
projects  being  financed  progress.  By  mid-September  1997,  the  Commission  had  made  payments  to  Greece
totalling ECU 257 million.

(98/C 117/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/97

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Radioactive pollution from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Britain

The  New  Scientist  (10  May  1997)  gives  details  of  a  study  tracking  how  radioactive  pollution  from  Britain(cid:146)s
nuclear complex at Sellafield has spread through the Arctic Ocean into the waters of northern Canada.

The study was led by Mike Brewers of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was
prepared for a recent conference on radioactivity in the Arctic in Tromso, Norway.

One of the conference organizers, Per Strand of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, has estimated
that Sellafield has released 40 000 billion becquerels of caesium-137 into the environment. According to him,
about 15 000 billion becquerels of that radioisotope have reached the Arctic. This would be two to three times
higher than the contamination brought to the Arctic from Chernobyl via the Baltic and North Seas.

Has  the  Commission  studied  the  data  compiled  on  this  matter?  What  action  will  it  take  to  ensure  that  the
radioactive pollution caused by Sellafield ceases?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3014/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. ERDF projects
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Italy, invitation to tender, project evaluation, regional development

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/127

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3013/97 and E-3033/97
given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 1997)

On  8  May  1996  the  Commission  announced  its  decision  on  how  the  financial  reserve  for  the  Community
Initiatives was to be allocated.

The reference allocation for the Urban Initiative in Italy for 1997-99 is ECU 11.81 million for Objective 1 areas
and ECU 6.40 million for other areas (1995 indexed prices).

In point 20 of its communication to the Member States (1) the Commission invited them to present operational
programmes for financing under Urban. No allocations were made to specific areas of any Member State other
than to split the amount allocated to each between Objective 1 and other areas.

The Italian authorities have sent a proposal for programmes in the cities of Trieste, Lecce and Catanzaro.

(1)  OJ C 200, 10.7.1996

(98/C 117/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: ERDF projects

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published itsthe invitation to tender urban pilot projects under ERDF
Article 10 on innovatory measures.

Will the Commission state how many projects were submitted by Italy?

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

(23 October 1997)

Following the call for proposals (1) under Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation (2)
the  Commission  received  503  projects  of  which  119  were  from  Italy.  The  final  choice  was  the  result  of
application of a rigorous selection procedure to the large number of proposals submitted. Using the criteria set
the Commission selected a total of 26 projects, 4 of which are in Italy, in Brindisi, Milan, Naples and Turin.

(1)  OJ C 319, 30.11.1995.
(2)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(98/C 117/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3016/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union

With  reference  to  the  Commission(cid:146)s  Communication  on  the  nuclear  industries  in  the  European  Union  (an
illustrative nuclear programm according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty) (COM(96) 339 final › CES 470/97)
and  given  the  potential  hazards  associated  with  nuclear  power  stations  in  the  CEECs  and  the  CIS,  should
concerns not be voiced regarding the extremely damaging impact which another large-scale nuclear accident
would have on public opinion? The PHARE and TACIS programmes have proved valuable but are now the target
of mounting criticism. Given that these programmes deal with nuclear safety, will the Commission review them
urgently and then publish their findings?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3016/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Commonwealth of Independent States, EU Member State, EU programme, European Commission, European Parliament, nuclear industry, nuclear policy, nuclear safety, project evaluation

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/127

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3013/97 and E-3033/97
given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 1997)

On  8  May  1996  the  Commission  announced  its  decision  on  how  the  financial  reserve  for  the  Community
Initiatives was to be allocated.

The reference allocation for the Urban Initiative in Italy for 1997-99 is ECU 11.81 million for Objective 1 areas
and ECU 6.40 million for other areas (1995 indexed prices).

In point 20 of its communication to the Member States (1) the Commission invited them to present operational
programmes for financing under Urban. No allocations were made to specific areas of any Member State other
than to split the amount allocated to each between Objective 1 and other areas.

The Italian authorities have sent a proposal for programmes in the cities of Trieste, Lecce and Catanzaro.

(1)  OJ C 200, 10.7.1996

(98/C 117/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: ERDF projects

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published itsthe invitation to tender urban pilot projects under ERDF
Article 10 on innovatory measures.

Will the Commission state how many projects were submitted by Italy?

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

(23 October 1997)

Following the call for proposals (1) under Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation (2)
the  Commission  received  503  projects  of  which  119  were  from  Italy.  The  final  choice  was  the  result  of
application of a rigorous selection procedure to the large number of proposals submitted. Using the criteria set
the Commission selected a total of 26 projects, 4 of which are in Italy, in Brindisi, Milan, Naples and Turin.

(1)  OJ C 319, 30.11.1995.
(2)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(98/C 117/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3016/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union

With  reference  to  the  Commission(cid:146)s  Communication  on  the  nuclear  industries  in  the  European  Union  (an
illustrative nuclear programm according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty) (COM(96) 339 final › CES 470/97)
and  given  the  potential  hazards  associated  with  nuclear  power  stations  in  the  CEECs  and  the  CIS,  should
concerns not be voiced regarding the extremely damaging impact which another large-scale nuclear accident
would have on public opinion? The PHARE and TACIS programmes have proved valuable but are now the target
of mounting criticism. Given that these programmes deal with nuclear safety, will the Commission review them
urgently and then publish their findings?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3028/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU publication, European Commission, charges for use of infrastructure, environmental protection, noise pollution, noise protection, prevention of pollution, proposal (EU), rail transport, resolution of parliament













EUR-Lex - 91997E3028 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3028

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3028/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)  


Official Journal C 117 , 16/04/1998 P. 0131 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)The Economic and Social Committee endorses the priority attached in the Commission's green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final) to measures to assess and reduce rail-traffic noise but believes that the noise reduction measures proposed in the Green Paper can be improved, for example by using low-noise trains.Will the Commission evaluate and avoid using variable rates for the use of individual railway lines? The resulting additional charge would prompt a shift to other, generally less environmentally-friendly, modes of transport.Joint answer to Written Questions E-3023/97, E-3024/97, E-3025/97, E-3026/97, E-3027/97 and E-3028/97 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1997)The Commission has become highly aware of the various topics mentioned by the Honourable Member.On the basis of several opinions delivered after publication of the Green Paper on noise and in particular on the Resolution adopted by Parliament, the Commission is currently putting the final touches to the future activities concerned in the fight against noise. It is intended that these activities will form part of a consistent, realistic programme. One of the key aspects of this programme will of course be coordination and consultation of the various operators involved in the problems arising from noise. The Commission does not plan to give preference to any particular measure. Balanced utilisation of the various instruments available is planned. The Commission does not intend to replace the setting of emission standards by economic incentives. In addition the Commission will also take care to avoid any options which would cause a shift in traffic towards transport modes which might have a greater impact on the environment.Finally, the setting of targets is an essential prerequisite for action against noise. The Commission is currently analysing the various possible options as regards the definition and setting of those targets.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3024/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU programme, EU publication, European Commission, noise pollution, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, proposal (EU), resolution of parliament

C 117/130

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 4. 98

(98/C 117/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The Commission(cid:146)s proposal to draw up a framework directive on measuring and assessing exposure to noise, set
out in its green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), is welcome; however, its announcement that it
will establish the target values and measures to enforce them (cid:145)for a later stage(cid:146) is disappointing.

On the basis of the principle of prevention, these target values are needed for the priority area of noise abatement
and the Commission is therefore asked not to delay in defining them.

(98/C 117/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

Given the scale of the problem of noise pollution in the Community and the fact that noise abatement has not so
far  been  given  a  high  priority  under  European  environmental  policy,  the  plans  to  draw  up  a  wide-ranging
programme to tackle the problem, set out in the Commission(cid:146)s green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540
final), are very important.

The contents of the green paper are welcome in principle and the Commission is asked to lose no time in drawing
up the action programme.

(98/C 117/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

With reference to the Commission(cid:146)s green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final),will it make noise
abatement one of the priority areas of Community research and development and will it take steps to improve the
coordination and increase the concentration of its R&D?

(98/C 117/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3026/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Future Noise Policy (Green Paper)

The  Economic  and  Social  Committee  accepts  the  Commission(cid:146)s  proposal  to  use  economic  instruments,  put
forward in its green paper on future noise policy (COM(96) 540 final), but opposes the introduction of fiscal
measures to (cid:145)punish(cid:146) those responsible for noise pollution or provide a source of revenue for the government.

Will the Commission ensure that the use of economic instruments is not a substitute for setting limit values for
noise emissions?
Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation 3094/95 thereby further prolonging the revelant provisions of the Seventh Council Directive on aid to Shipbuilding
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: OECD, State aid, competition policy, control of State aid, shipbuilding

15.4.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  114/13

II

(Preparatory  Acts)

COMMISSION

Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  (EC)  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  3094/95  thereby
further  prolonging  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Seventh  Council  Directive  on  aid  to  Ship(cid:220)
building

(98/C  114/07)

(Text  with  EEA  relevance)

COM(97)  469  final  -  97/0248(CNS)

(Submitted  by  the  Commission  on  2  October  1997)

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION,

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and 
Articles  92(3)(e),  94  and  113  thereof,

in  particular

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission,

Having  regard  to  the  opinion  of  the  European  Parliament,

Having  regard  to  the  opinion  of  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,

Whereas,  an  agreement  respecting  normal  competitive  conditions  in  the  commercial  ship(cid:220)
building  and  repair  industry  concluded  between  the  European  Community  and  certain  third
countries  within  the  framework  of  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Devel(cid:220)
opment  (OECD)(cid:216)(˛),  has  still  not  yet  entered  into  force,

Whereas,  therefore  Council  Regulation  3094/95  of  22  December  1995(cid:216)(ˇ)  on  aid  to  ship(cid:220)
building  has  not  yet  entered  into  force,

Whereas,  in  accordance  with  Article  10  of  Regulation  3094/95,  as  amended  by  Regulation
1904/96(cid:216)(—)  the  relevant  rules  of  Council  Directive  90/684/EEC  on  aid  to  shipbuilding(cid:216)((cid:209))
continue  to  apply  ad  interim,  pending  the  entry  into  force  of  the  OECD  agreement  and  until
31  December  1997  at  the  latest,

Whereas  given  the  continuing  uncertainties  over  entry  into  force  of  the  OECD  agreement,
which  may  be  further  delayed  beyond  31  December  1997,  the  Council  needs  to  take  appro(cid:220)
priate  steps  pending  decisions  on  a  possible  new  aid  arrangement,

Whereas  Regulation  3094/95  should  therefore  be  modified,

HAS  ADOPTED  THIS  REGULATION:

Article  1

The  third  paragraph  of  Article  10  of  Regulation  3094/95  shall  be  replaced  by  the  following:

"Pending  the  entry  into  force  of  the  said  Agreement,  the  relevant  provisions  of  Directive
90/684/EEC  shall  apply  until  the  Agreement  enters  into  force  and  until  31  December  1998  at
the  latest.’

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  in  all  Member  States.

Article  2

(˛)(cid:217)OJ  C  375,  30.12.1994,  p.  3.
(ˇ)(cid:217)OJ  L  332,  30.12.1995,  p.  1.
(—)(cid:217)OJ  L  251,  3.10.1996,  p.  5.
((cid:209))(cid:217)OJ  L  380,  31.12.1990,  p.  27.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3004/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Supply of buses for the Lazio regional transport company CO.TRA.L.
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Latium, award of contract, bus, invitation to tender, means of public conveyance, price disparity, supplies contract, transport company













EUR-Lex - 91997E3004 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3004

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3004/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Supply of buses for the Lazio regional transport company CO.TRA.L.  


Official Journal C 134 , 30/04/1998 P. 0053 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)Subject: Supply of buses for the Lazio regional transport company CO.TRA.L.In the last few days the Region of Lazio, the Province of Rome and Rome City Council have been bombarded by a series of questions from a number of councillors concerning the purchase of 255 FIAT IVECO buses by CO.TRA.L., the regional transport company.The problem is that apparently the price of each bus is apparently LIT 100 million more than the market price and the price paid for a similar consignment of 13 vehicles bought by the Carabinieri General command.The discrepancy in price has given rise to doubts about the procedures and criteria for the award of the contract in question.In view of this, can the Commission say:1. whether the arrangements for the whole call to tender complied with the provisions of Community legislation regarding public supply contracts in terms of publicity, transparency and formal correctness of procedures;2. what it thinks about the blatant discrepancy between the market price and the price paid for the supply contract awarded by CO.TRA.L;3. what its overall opinion of the affair is?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)The Commission has not received any complaints concerning the purchase of buses by CO.TRA.L. The Honourable Member is asked to send the Commission the evidence she has indicating a possible infringement of Community public procurement legislation.A difference between the market price and the price paid in the case in question does not in itself constitute an infringement of that legislation.Under the circumstances, the Commission does not consider that it can comment on the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3002/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Italian Government decree allowing local authorities to set up their own taxi services
Date: 1997-10-01
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, competence of the Member States, domestic market, means of public conveyance, municipality, national law, restriction on competition, taxi

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/125

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

(24 October 1997)

The Commission has no knowledge of the document to which the Honourable Member is referring.

As for the new Turkish government(cid:146)s stance on human rights and democratisation, the Prime Minister has on a
number of occasions publicly acknowledged the ground his country still has to cover in this field.

The programme proposed in the Commission(cid:146)s communication of 15 July on the future of relations with Turkey
specifically involves cooperating closely with the government on human rights and thereby fostering the smooth
development of civil society in the country.

(98/C 117/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/97

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Italian Government decree allowing local authorities to set up their own taxi services

In the last week of July 1997 the Italian Government issued a decree enabling local authorities to set up their own
public  taxi  services,  as  an  alternative  to  existing  taxi  services.  This  provision  has  given  rise  to  a  number  of
complaints  by  taxi-drivers,  who  consider  that  their  livelihood  is  being  jeopardized  by  the  introduction  of
mechanisms which threaten to undermine free competition in the taxi sector.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1.  whether it is aware of this matter;

2.  whether there is any European legislation on taxi services;

3.  whether it considers the fears expressed by Italian taxi drivers concerning possible distortions of competition

caused by the decree to be justified;

4. 

if so, whether it considers it should use its influence with the Italian authorities on the subject?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1997)

The Commission is not aware of the measures cited by the Honourable Member

No.

1.

2.

3. and 4.
The  organisation  and  control  of  national,  regional  or  local  taxi  markets  including  the  licensing
system is mainly an area of competence of national authorities. They are in a better position to deal with these
matters.

(98/C 117/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3011/97

by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 1997)

Subject: Granting PDO to Terra di Bari oil

Will the Commission say why it called off the meeting at which Terra di Bari extra virgin olive oil was to have
been  granted  protected  designation  of  origin  (PDO)?  This  meeting,  and  the  award  of  PDO,  had  been  fully
expected by the Italian Farmers(cid:146) Confederation whose provincial president, Antonio Barile, had even arranged a
special meeting with traders and the press in Bari in July 1997 to announce the good news.