do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3372/97 by Lis JENSEN to the Commission. Energy sector priorities
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, JENSEN LIS
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, competence of the Member States, competition law, energy policy, energy production, energy transport, environmental protection, national implementing measure, renewable energy

C 174/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 6. 98

Given these provisions to ensure that high safety standards are maintained, and in the absence of any indication
of an adverse impact upon safety, the Commission has no plans to propose legislation on this matter.

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(98/C 174/86)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/97

by Lis Jensen (I-EDN) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Energy sector priorities

What  is  the  Commission(cid:146)s  position  as  regards  requirements  imposed  by  Member  States(cid:146)  energy  policies  on
power producers and distributors to take environmental aspects into account when planning power production,
and on the indirect impact this may have on the functioning of the internal market in energy?

Take, for example, the specific case of power production in Denmark, where the law on the supply of electricity
has been amended so as to require power producers to take energy from decentralized CHP units and renewable
sources and the state also grants aid to such forms of production.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 1997)

The  internal  market  for  electricity  is  regulated  through  Directive  96/92/EC  of  19  December  1996 (1)  which
establishes common rules for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. It entered into force on
19 February 1997 and Member States have in general two years to implement the Directive.

The Directive allows Member States to take environmental considerations fully into account when implementing
it. Pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the Directive, Member States may require the system operator to give priority to
electricity based on renewables and from combined heat and power when dispatching generating installations.

Member States may also, according to Article 3 (2), impose public service obligations on undertakings operating
in the electricity sector. These obligations may, inter alia, relate to environmental protection.

Furthermore,  when  a  Member  State  sets  up  the  criteria  for  granting  an  authorization  for  constructing  new
generating capacity or lists the tender specifications a possible generator has to follow, it can also apply criteria
(Article 5 (1) of the Directive), which relate to the protection of the environment.

It should, however, be underlined that when a Member State applies the provisions of the Directive it must be
done in an objective, transparent and non-discriminatory way. The provisions cannot be used to favour producers
in the Member State itself.

The  specific  case  of  Denmark  will  be  examined  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Directive,  including  the
abovementioned provisions allowing Member States to take environmental aspects into account.

(1)  OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3341/97 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Erasmus accompanying measures
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: DUEHRKOP DUEHRKOP, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, European Movement, European cooperation, action programme, association, education policy, educational institution

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/141

In the United Kingdom, the basic safety net provided for women not qualifying for SMP is £52.50 per week for
12 weeks. In the light of the ECJ ruling in the Gillespie case that the equal pay directive neither requires full pay
nor lays down criteria for determining the amount payable, provided that amount is not so low as to jeopardise
the purpose of maternity leave, would the Commission not agree that the UK safety net for women who fall into
the 16-week loophole is so low as to jeopardise the purpose of maternity leave, most particularly for women
whose income is the main source of revenue for a family?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 1997)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question concerns complex national legislation, and its alleged failure to comply with
a fundamental principle of Community law. In order to allow a definitive reply, the British authorities have been
contacted  to  clarify  the  precise  impact  of  British  legislation  in  the  situation  described  by  the  Honourable
Member.

As soon as the information is available, the Commission will reply in full.

(98/C 134/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/97

by Ba·rbara Du¤hrkop Du¤ hrkop (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Erasmus accompanying measures

Some of those taking part in the Socrates programme (Action III) have expressed surprise at the fact that the
Socrates  accompanying  measures  will  from  now  on  be  focused  on  national  rather  than  transnational
organizations.

Can the Commission confirm this change?

If so, what were the reasons for the change?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the complementary measures under the Socrates programme
which are set out in Chapter III, Action 3, point 5, section B of the Annex to Decision 819/95/EC (1) establishing
the action programme.

The Commission can confirm that there has been no change in policy in this regard. As the 1997 applicants’ guide
points out, the complementary measures are open to institutions, organisations or associations working in the
education sector. As a general rule, the activities undertaken by European associations and groupings are dealt
with  as  a  matter  of  priority.  Furthermore,  one  of  the  activities  that  receives  support  is  the  setting-up  or
consolidation of European associations in the field of education.

For all projects receiving support under Action 3 of the programme, particular attention is paid to the multilateral
nature of the activities and the quality of the projects with a view to introducing a European dimension into the
area of education.

(1)  OJ L 87, 20.4.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3369/97 by Giacomo SANTINI to the Commission. European Community Sports Club - Euroski
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, SANTINI
Subjects: European official, administrative transparency, holiday, sports body, tourism, works council

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/177

(98/C 117/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3349/97

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Combating fraud

Will the Commission say which Member States of the European Union have already ratified the Convention on
the Protection of the Financial Interests of the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 1997)

Up to now, none of the Member States have ratified the Convention on the protection of the financial interests of
the Community.

The Commission would point out that the target date of mid- 1998 was introduced for the ratification of this
Convention in the action plan to combat organized crime (1) adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on
28 April 1997. This action plan was subsequently approved by the European Council of Amsterdam.

Moreover, the Commission would observe that it is of the utmost importance to recommend Member States not
only to ratify the Convention (as well as the protocols to this Convention and the Convention on the fight against
corruption involving officials of the Community or officials of Member States) but also to take the necessary
measures for their transposition into national law.

(1)  OJ C 251, 15.8.1997.

(98/C 117/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3369/97

by Giacomo Santini (UPE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: European Community Sports Club › Euroski

The European Community Sports Club › Euroski organizes skiing weeks for EU officials three times a year in
Bormio, Courmayeur and San Domenico.

What is planned as a programme for the 1997/1998 season is actually a repeat of previous such holidays, since
the Sports Club has been taking EU officials to the same resorts for around ten years.

When I proposed a change of venue to allow equal opportunities for all European tourist resorts, I was politely
told that they were grateful for my suggestion but could not change the venue as this would be unfair to their
friends in Bormio, Courmayeur and San Domenico.

Will  the  Commission  investigate  this  matter  to  guarantee  transparency  and  ensure  that  there  are  no  private
interests behind the choice of a venue?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1997)

Under  the  staff  welfare  policy,  50  sports  and  cultural  clubs  meeting  certain  criteria  are  recognised  by  the
Commission. The Euroski club is not one of these and therefore cannot be regarded as a Commission sports club.

Members  of  this  group  are  acting  in  a  purely  private  capacity,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  ground  for  the
Commission to make an inquiry nor intervene in their activities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3344/97 by Valerio BALDINI to the Commission. Starling hunting in Italy
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: BALDINI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, bird, hunting, hunting regulations, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/143

(98/C 134/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/97

by Valerio Baldini (UPE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Starling hunting in Italy

Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 94/24/EEC (2), authorizes
the hunting of starlings only in France, Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Can  the  Commission  explain  why  Italy  does  not  enjoy  similar  treatment  and  must  content  itself  with  the
possibility provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC of resorting to an application for a derogation?

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1997)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds was amended in 1994 to include the starling
(sturnus vulgaris) in Annex II/2 of the Directive and to authorise the hunting of this bird in just four Member
States (Greece, Spain, France and Portugal).

The Commission was not however aware of any desire by Italy to extend this provision to their national territory
when preparatory work and discussions, which resulted in the Council adopting the amendment to the Directive
in  question,  were  taking  place.  Thus,  prior  to  any  further  amendment  to  Annex  II/2  of  Council  Directive
79/409/EEC,  Italy  may  only  derogate  from  the  strict  protection  measures  in  force  for  this  species  for  duly
substantiated reasons, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 9 of the Directive.

(98/C 134/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/97

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Funding of projects for the protection of forests

The  Commission  has  allocated  a  sum  of  ECU  13.4  million  to  projects  aimed  at  protecting  forests  from
atmospheric pollution and fires.

Will it say which projects are intended for Portugal and what level of funding has been allocated in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 1997)

The Commission has granted assistance of ECU 64 892 to four projects submitted by Portugal under Regulation
(EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of the Community(cid:146)s forests against atmospheric pollution (1).

Under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community(cid:146)s forests against fire (2), the Commission
has granted assistance of ECU 2 482 888 to 23 Portuguese projects.

Alist of the forest-protection projects approved in 1997 under the two Regulations is being sent directly to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(1)  OJ L 326, 21.11.1986.
(2)  OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3350/97 by Helena TORRES MARQUES to the Commission. Funding of projects for the protection of forests
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, TORRES MARQUES
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, Portugal, air quality, fire protection, forest conservation, pollution control measures

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/143

(98/C 134/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3344/97

by Valerio Baldini (UPE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Starling hunting in Italy

Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Directive 94/24/EEC (2), authorizes
the hunting of starlings only in France, Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Can  the  Commission  explain  why  Italy  does  not  enjoy  similar  treatment  and  must  content  itself  with  the
possibility provided for in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC of resorting to an application for a derogation?

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1997)

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds was amended in 1994 to include the starling
(sturnus vulgaris) in Annex II/2 of the Directive and to authorise the hunting of this bird in just four Member
States (Greece, Spain, France and Portugal).

The Commission was not however aware of any desire by Italy to extend this provision to their national territory
when preparatory work and discussions, which resulted in the Council adopting the amendment to the Directive
in  question,  were  taking  place.  Thus,  prior  to  any  further  amendment  to  Annex  II/2  of  Council  Directive
79/409/EEC,  Italy  may  only  derogate  from  the  strict  protection  measures  in  force  for  this  species  for  duly
substantiated reasons, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 9 of the Directive.

(98/C 134/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/97

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Funding of projects for the protection of forests

The  Commission  has  allocated  a  sum  of  ECU  13.4  million  to  projects  aimed  at  protecting  forests  from
atmospheric pollution and fires.

Will it say which projects are intended for Portugal and what level of funding has been allocated in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 1997)

The Commission has granted assistance of ECU 64 892 to four projects submitted by Portugal under Regulation
(EEC) No 3528/86 on the protection of the Community(cid:146)s forests against atmospheric pollution (1).

Under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on protection of the Community(cid:146)s forests against fire (2), the Commission
has granted assistance of ECU 2 482 888 to 23 Portuguese projects.

Alist of the forest-protection projects approved in 1997 under the two Regulations is being sent directly to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(1)  OJ L 326, 21.11.1986.
(2)  OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3351/97 by Helena TORRES MARQUES to the Commission. Projects funded by LIFE II
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, TORRES MARQUES
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU financing, Portugal, co-financing, environmental protection, project evaluation

C 158/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

The position of the Union with regard to respect for human rights in Turkey was recently confirmed at the

3.
European Council meeting in Luxembourg on 12 and 13 December 1997.

In  particular,  the  European  Council  recalled  that  strengthening  Turkey(cid:146)s  links  with  the  European  Union  also
depended on that country(cid:146)s pursuit of the political reforms on which it has embarked, including the alignment of
human rights standards and practices on those in force in the European Union.

(98/C 158/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/97

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Council

(23 October 1997)

Subject: Belgian contribution to the European budget

At the meeting of Finance Ministers in Mondorf on 13/14 September, the Netherlands requested a reduction in its
contribution to the Union, claiming, on the basis of its own table of figures, that it was the biggest net contributor
to the Union.

Can the Council supply a copy of this table of figures cited by the Netherlands?

Does the Council have calculations of its own which give a detailed indication of which Member States of the
Union are net contributors or net beneficiaries and, to what extent, for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Answer

(20 January 1998)

1.
The working paper to which the Honourable Member refers was mentioned by the Netherlands delegation
at an informal meeting of Finance Ministers and was not the subject of an official communication to the Council.
According  to  customary  practice,  when  a  delegation  forwards  an  internal  document  of  that  kind  which  is
discussed in an informal setting, it is the responsibility of that delegation alone, i.e. in this case the Netherlands
delegation.

2. With regard to the second question, the Council has taken note of the figures prepared by the Commission
relating to the breakdown of resources and most expenditure per Member State. Similar information was also
made available to the Council during discussions on previous financial packages and is included in the Court of
Auditors reports. However, neither the Council nor the Commission has ever formally drawn up net balances per
Member State.

(98/C 158/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/97

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 1997)

Subject: Projects funded by LIFE II

In July 1997 the Commission selected 188 new projects to be co-funded by Life II, the Community(cid:146)s financial
instrument for the environment.

Will it say whether the selected projects include any Portuguese projects, and, if so, which ones?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3359/97 by Brian CROWLEY to the Commission. Representation of sectoral organizations
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: CROWLEY, European Parliament
Subjects: European social policy, civil aviation, economic sector, joint committee on EU matters, social dialogue (EU), social partners













EUR-Lex - 91997E3359 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3359

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3359/97 by Brian CROWLEY to the Commission. Representation of sectoral organizations  


Official Journal C 134 , 30/04/1998 P. 0147 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/97 by Brian Crowley (UPE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)Subject: Representation of sectoral organizationsGiven the Commission's statement in its Communication concerning the Development of the Social Dialogue at Community level that 'it will take account of special circumstances in the representation of social partners including the problem of certain sectoral organizations who are not members of specific Joint Committees' ((Commission communication concerning the Development of the Social Dialogue at Community level, COM(96) 448 final, paragraph 40. )), could the Commission report as to the reasons why European organizations representing flight crew, like the European Cockpit Association, who are an important sectoral organization, are not represented as social partners at European Union level and what steps, if any, have been taken to rectify this situation?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)The European cockpit association (ECA) plays an active role in the social dialogue at European level. It is fully informed of all developments regarding Community social policy at cross sectoral and sectoral level. ECA also takes part actively in the sectoral social dialogue. It is invited to the plenary session of the joint committee on civil aviation. Moreover, ECA is an active participant in the flight time limitation discussions at European level which aim to establish maximum duty periods for reasons of operational safety.The Commission will shortly present a communication to the Council and the Parliament on the future of the social dialogue. It is the result of a comprehensive consultation exercise, initiated through the 1996 communication mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Parliament has contributed greatly to that exercise by its in-depth analysis of the future of the social dialogue in its resolution of 18 July 1997, supporting the Commission in its call for a strengthened sectoral dialogue.In order to achieve this, the Commission intends to propose adaptations to the current structures of the sectoral dialogue. The social partners should be encouraged to work within flexible and adaptable structures which favour efficient political dialogue.
Decision on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the field of transport between the European Community and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (COM(96)0533 C4-0310/97 96/0260 (AVC))
Date: 1997-10-22
Institutions: Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: North Macedonia, combined transport, cooperation agreement (EU), land transport, transit, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 51997AP0296 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AP0296

Decision on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the field of transport between the European Community and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (COM(96)0533 C4-0310/97 96/0260 (AVC))  


Official Journal C 339 , 10/11/1997 P. 0052 





A4-0296/97Decision on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the field of transport between the European Community and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (COM(96)0533 - C4-0310/97 - 96/0260 (AVC))(Assent procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision, COM(96)0533 - 96/0260 (AVC) ((OJ C 79 12.3.1997, p. 159.)),- having regard to the Council's request for Parliament's assent pursuant to Article 228(3), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (8204/97 - C4-0310/97),- having regard to Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on External Economic Relations (A4-0296/97),1. Gives its assent to the conclusion of the agreement;2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.