do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 238/98 by María ESTEVAN BOLEA to the Commission. Biological diversity
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: ESTEVAN BOLEA, European Parliament
Subjects: European Environment Agency, biodiversity, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental protection, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/7

(98/C 386/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In accordance with the principle whereby in situ conservation has priority over ex situ conservation (as laid down
in the convention on biological diversity), how does the Commission envisage conserving and maintaining
natural habitats and ecosystems when the restoration of damaged ecosystems is carried out? Has the Commission
any plans for a system for establishing appropriate criteria?

(98/C 386/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

What role does the EU allocate to botanical gardens in connection with the implementation of its Biological
Diversity Strategy, as regards both (cid:145)in situ(cid:146) and (cid:145)ex situ(cid:146) conservation? Does any initiative exist which could act
as a logical follow-up to Parliament(cid:146)s resolution on zoos and the role which they could be assigned as part of the
Community conservation policy?

(98/C 386/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In view of the importance of biodiversity to the protection of Europe(cid:146)s environment, it is essential for the
biological diversity strategy to be based on a precise analysis of the current situation and the aims to be achieved,
and on clear objectives and well-defined means. Would the Commission therefore answer the following
questions:

1. How is it envisaged within the EU strategy that species of wild flora and fauna should be conserved as
essential components of biological diversity? Is it intended that specific action plans relating to this issue will
be drawn up?

2. Do the departments responsible for applying other policies (agriculture, fisheries, transport and energy,
tourism, international cooperation, etc.) do anything which could have an adverse effect on biological
diversity in the EU?

3.

In drawing up the EU strategy, is the Commission taking into consideration the fact that, in the application of
such policies, the degree of biological richness of the individual Member States is a factor which may require
that application to be modulated?

4. What action is the Commission contemplating in connection with the EU strategy in order to encourage
application of CITES, given that the EU, as a consumer of biodiversity from other countries, has
responsibilities in terms of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity outside its territory?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 222/98 by Markus FERBER to the Commission. EU aid from the social and regional funds for Bavarian Swabia
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, FERBER
Subjects: Bavaria, Structural Funds, aid system, distribution of aid, economic aid, financial aid, regional aid

17. 7. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 223/141

Paragraphs 2 to 4 provide that the Commission shall assess those amounts and then adopt an outline plan of
co-financing action. Since no assessments have been received from the Member States the Commission has so
far been unable to prepare any such action plan.

Conversely it is dealing with its future adoption by proposing that implementation of Natura 2000 should form
part of the activities that are eligible under the structural funds and the common agricultural policy.

(98/C 223/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0222/98

by Markus Ferber (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: EU aid from the social and regional funds for Bavarian Swabia

Can  the  Commission  provide  the  following  information  on  EU  economic  and  regional  aid  for  the  region  of
Bavarian Swabia:

1.  How much EU structural aid › broken down by fund and Community initiative › went to that region in

1997?

2.  What sum went to agriculture?

3.  How many jobs were created with EU economic and regional aid in the region of Bavarian Swabia in 1997?

4.  How much EU structural aid went to comparable regions in other Member States in 1997?

5.  How many jobs were created with EU economic and regional aid in comparable regions in other Member

States in 1997?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

(98/C 223/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0223/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Experts and consultants employed by the Commission

Can  the  Commission  provide  information  on  experts  and  consultants  employed  by  the  Commission  since
1 January 1997:

1.  How many national experts are there?

(a)  What is the breakdown of national experts by Member State?
(b)  Can the Commission supply a list of names of German experts?

2.  How many temporary agents are employed by the Commission as consultants or in category A?

(a)  What is the breakdown by Member State
(b)  Can the Commission supply a list of names of German temporary agents?
(c)  What period of contract has been agreed in each case?

3.  How many consultants(cid:146) contracts has the Commission concluded?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 239/98 by María ESTEVAN BOLEA to the Commission. Biological diversity
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: ESTEVAN BOLEA, European Parliament
Subjects: European Environment Agency, biodiversity, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental protection, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/7

(98/C 386/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In accordance with the principle whereby in situ conservation has priority over ex situ conservation (as laid down
in the convention on biological diversity), how does the Commission envisage conserving and maintaining
natural habitats and ecosystems when the restoration of damaged ecosystems is carried out? Has the Commission
any plans for a system for establishing appropriate criteria?

(98/C 386/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

What role does the EU allocate to botanical gardens in connection with the implementation of its Biological
Diversity Strategy, as regards both (cid:145)in situ(cid:146) and (cid:145)ex situ(cid:146) conservation? Does any initiative exist which could act
as a logical follow-up to Parliament(cid:146)s resolution on zoos and the role which they could be assigned as part of the
Community conservation policy?

(98/C 386/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In view of the importance of biodiversity to the protection of Europe(cid:146)s environment, it is essential for the
biological diversity strategy to be based on a precise analysis of the current situation and the aims to be achieved,
and on clear objectives and well-defined means. Would the Commission therefore answer the following
questions:

1. How is it envisaged within the EU strategy that species of wild flora and fauna should be conserved as
essential components of biological diversity? Is it intended that specific action plans relating to this issue will
be drawn up?

2. Do the departments responsible for applying other policies (agriculture, fisheries, transport and energy,
tourism, international cooperation, etc.) do anything which could have an adverse effect on biological
diversity in the EU?

3.

In drawing up the EU strategy, is the Commission taking into consideration the fact that, in the application of
such policies, the degree of biological richness of the individual Member States is a factor which may require
that application to be modulated?

4. What action is the Commission contemplating in connection with the EU strategy in order to encourage
application of CITES, given that the EU, as a consumer of biodiversity from other countries, has
responsibilities in terms of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity outside its territory?
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 355/98 of 13 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2098/97
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

14. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 42/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 355/98

of 13 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connec-
tion with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2098/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of
22 December 1995 on the common organization of the
market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No
192/98 (2), and in particular Article 13 (3) thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the export refund on
rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2098/97 (3);

Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
584/75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/
95 (5), allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC)
No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
maximum export
this
maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account;
whereas a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
tender is equal to or less than the maximum export
refund;

refund; whereas

in fixing

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the rice in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled round
grain rice to be exported to certain third countries
pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation
(EC) No 2098/97 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders submitted from 9 to 12 February 1998 at ECU 97
per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 February
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 292, 25. 10. 1997, p. 25.
(4) OJ L 61, 7. 3. 1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15. 2. 1995, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 240/98 by María ESTEVAN BOLEA to the Commission. Biological diversity
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: ESTEVAN BOLEA, European Parliament
Subjects: European Environment Agency, biodiversity, degradation of the environment, ecosystem, environmental protection, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/7

(98/C 386/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In accordance with the principle whereby in situ conservation has priority over ex situ conservation (as laid down
in the convention on biological diversity), how does the Commission envisage conserving and maintaining
natural habitats and ecosystems when the restoration of damaged ecosystems is carried out? Has the Commission
any plans for a system for establishing appropriate criteria?

(98/C 386/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

What role does the EU allocate to botanical gardens in connection with the implementation of its Biological
Diversity Strategy, as regards both (cid:145)in situ(cid:146) and (cid:145)ex situ(cid:146) conservation? Does any initiative exist which could act
as a logical follow-up to Parliament(cid:146)s resolution on zoos and the role which they could be assigned as part of the
Community conservation policy?

(98/C 386/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/98

by Mar(cid:237)a Estevan Bolea (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Biological diversity

In view of the importance of biodiversity to the protection of Europe(cid:146)s environment, it is essential for the
biological diversity strategy to be based on a precise analysis of the current situation and the aims to be achieved,
and on clear objectives and well-defined means. Would the Commission therefore answer the following
questions:

1. How is it envisaged within the EU strategy that species of wild flora and fauna should be conserved as
essential components of biological diversity? Is it intended that specific action plans relating to this issue will
be drawn up?

2. Do the departments responsible for applying other policies (agriculture, fisheries, transport and energy,
tourism, international cooperation, etc.) do anything which could have an adverse effect on biological
diversity in the EU?

3.

In drawing up the EU strategy, is the Commission taking into consideration the fact that, in the application of
such policies, the degree of biological richness of the individual Member States is a factor which may require
that application to be modulated?

4. What action is the Commission contemplating in connection with the EU strategy in order to encourage
application of CITES, given that the EU, as a consumer of biodiversity from other countries, has
responsibilities in terms of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity outside its territory?
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 357/98 of 13 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled medium grain and long grain A rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2096/97
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

14. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 42/17

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 357/98

of 13 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled medium grain and long
grain A rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC)
No 2096/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of
22 December 1995 on the common organization of the
market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No
192/98 (2), and in particular Article 13 (3) thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the export refund on
rice was issued pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2096/97 (3);

Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
584/75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/
95 (5), allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with
the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC)
No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
this
maximum export
maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account;
whereas a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
tender is equal to or less than the maximum export
refund;

refund; whereas

in fixing

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the rice in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled medium
grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain
third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued
in Regulation (EC) No 2096/97 is hereby fixed on the
basis of the tenders submitted from 9 to 12 February
1998 at ECU 107 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 February
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 292, 25. 10. 1997, p. 19.
(4) OJ L 61, 7. 3. 1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15. 2. 1995, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 234/98 by José SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ- NEYRA to the Commission. Ground handling services at airports - Frankfurter Flughafen AG
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, SALAFRANCA SANCHEZ-NEYRA
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, air transport, airport, dominant position, infringement of EU law, provision of services

C 223/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 7. 98

2.  What  is  the  percentage  reduction  of  EAGGF,  Guarantee  Section,  spending  and  how  much  is  this  in  ecu
compared with the overall budgets for the 1992-1997 period, broken down by year and Member State?

3.  What was the trend in EAGGF, Guidance Section, spending (percentage and amounts) compared to total
EAGGF spending and compared with the total budgets for the 1992-1997 period, broken down by year and
Member State?

4.  What measures as regards modernization, structural intervention and programmes did the Community take
in respect of the CAP and what sums were made available for the implementation thereof from the budgets
of the 1992-1997 period, broken down by year and Member State?

5.  What measures and programmes were adopted for young farmers and the introduction of new technologies
in farm holdings and in the stockbreeding sector and what sums were allocated during the 1992-1997 period,
broken down by year and Member State?

6. 

Is  there  any  correlation  in  absolute  terms  (ecu)  between  the  reduction  of  agricultural  spending  of  the
EAGGF,  Guarantee  Section,  and  the  development  of  modernization  and  intervention  measures  for
agriculture for the 1992-1997 period, broken down by year and Member State?

7.  What specific measures will be taken to check the steady decline in agricultural incomes and what steps can
be taken to ensure the development of a modern, competitive and self -sufficient agricultural sector in the
EU, faced with the challenges of international competition and the forthcoming enlargement of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as
soon as possible.

(98/C 223/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/98

by Jose· Salafranca  Sa·nchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Ground handling services at airports › Frankfurter Flughafen AG

Could  the  Commission  explain  the  terms  of  the  decisions  taken  last  Wednesday  with  a  view  to  ending  the
monopoly enjoyed by Frankfurter Flughafen AG in the provision of ground handling services?

Under what terms and for what reasons has the Commission decided that the directive on the liberalization of
ground handling services at EU airports will not fully apply to Frankfurt airport(cid:146)s Terminal 1?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to decision 98/190/98, which was published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (1), in particular the (cid:145)Legal assessment(cid:146) section.

(1)  OJ L 72, 11.3.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 233/98 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. Passenger safety in trains
Date: 1998-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, NEEDLE
Subjects: carriage of passengers, rail transport, transport accident, transport regulations, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91998E0233 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0233

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 233/98 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. Passenger safety in trains  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0043 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/98 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1998)Subject: Passenger safety in trainsWould the European Commission outline its activities with respect to passenger safety in trains, with particular regard to those services which may be heavily used? In particular:1. Is there any evidence to suggest that injuries will be worse on a heavily-loaded train than one which is lightly loaded, on indeed that the opposite is true?2. Are EU rules applicable to the number of passengers carried in trains?3. Is railway rolling stock designed to specifications which will take a load 'well in excess of full and standing' and, if so, are there any restrictions (other than physical impossibility) on the numbers of passengers carried in trains?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1998)The Commission notes that rail accidents are, fortunately, not frequent and that travel by train is much safer than other modes of land transport. Naturally, however, there is constant need for improvement.On the specific questions raised:1. There is some evidence that passengers standing in areas of carriages designed to absorb energy in an accident (crumple zones) will suffer more severe injuries than if they were seated. However, there is no comprehensive evidence on the relative severity of injuries sustained in fully or lightly loaded carriages. This would depend on the nature of the accident.2. There are no Community rules on the number of passengers carried in trains since this matter is not one of Community legal competence.3. In designing rolling stock, the load bearing capabilities are calculated and they are in excess of what a fully laden carriage would weigh. There is therefore no physical limit, other than space, on the number of passengers a carriage may carry. Of course individual operators are free to impose their own limits.