do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 470/98 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Article 10
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: Community budget, EU expenditure, EU statistics, European Regional Development Fund, Structural Funds

C 310/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

The  Commission  is  examining  the  responses  of  the  Member  States  to  these  letters.  A  combined  team  of
Community inspectors and officials has also begun a series of visits to all Member States in order to ensure that
the necessary framework is in place to comply with the obligations of the MAGPs. If the Commission is not
convinced that a genuine effort is being made to respect these obligations, it will not hesitate to take the necessary
legal  action  against  the  Member  States  concerned.  In  the  meantime,  Community  assistance  has  already  been
suspended for some Member States until the MAGP III objectives are achieved.

(98/C 310/90)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: Completion of structural fund programmes 1994-1999

What amount and what percentage of Structural Fund payments by objective and by Member State were paid
after the end of the previous programming period on 31 December 1993? Will the Commission produce a similar
table based on current estimates for monies likely to be outstanding on 31 December 1999? What procedures is
the Commission proposing to use to ensure that current programmes are closed efficiently without any undue
delays in final payments or reduction in the quality of the projects?

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

(7 May 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 310/91)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: Article 10

Given the budget appropriations 1994-98, what is the exact percentage of structural fund spending devoted to
date to Article 10 during the current programming period? What amount would be required in the 1999 budget to
ensure that the first one per cent is achieved overall? Is the Commission committed to putting this forward in its
preliminary draft budget for 1999?

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

(7 April 1998)

Under the current programming period 1994-1999, 450 MECU have been allocated for spending under Article 10
of  the  European  regional  development  fund  (ERDF)  Regulation (1).  This  represents  approximately  0.56%  of
ERDF.  The  sum  representing  1%  would  be  some  800  MECU.  However,  the  Commission  does  not  intend  to
provide for an increase beyond 0.56% through its proposal for the 1999 budget.

(1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 477/98 of 27 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 391/92 setting the amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products from the Community to the French overseas departments
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU production, French overseas department and region, aid system, cereals, supply

L 60/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28. 2. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 477/98

of 27 February 1998

amending Regulation (EEC) No 391/92 setting the amounts of aid for the supply
of cereals products from the Community to the French overseas departments

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91
of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in
respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of
the French overseas departments (1), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2598/95 (2), and in particular Article
2 (6) thereof,
Whereas the amounts of aid for the supply of cereals
products to the French overseas departments (FOD) has
been settled by Commission Regulation (EEC) No
391/92 (3), as
last amended by Regulation (EC) No
247/98 (4); whereas, as a consequence of the changes of
the rates and prices for cereals products in the European
part of the Community and on the world market, the aid

for supply to the FOD should be set at the amounts
given in the Annex;

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 Annex of amended Regulation (EEC) No 391/92 is
replaced by the Annex to the present Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 356, 24. 12. 1991, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 267, 9. 11. 1995, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 43, 19. 2. 1992, p. 23.
(4) OJ L 25, 31. 1. 1998, p. 15.

28. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 60/45

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 27 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 391/92
setting the amounts of aid for the supply of cereals products from the Community to the
French overseas departments

Product
(CN code)

Common wheat

(1001 90 99)

Barley

(1003 00 90)

Maize

(1005 90 00)

Durum wheat

(1001 10 00)

(Ecu/tonne)

Amount of aid

Destination

Guadeloupe

Martinique

French
Guiana

R(cid:130)union

25,00

25,00

25,00

28,00

37,00

37,00

37,00

40,00

36,00

36,00

36,00

39,00

12,00

12,00

12,00

16,00
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 454/98 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Persistence of the franchise system for mobile and personal telecommunications
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Italy, communications systems, liberalisation of the market, telecommunications, telephone charges, trade licence

C 310/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

1.  Does the building project for the Tor Marancia area require specific environmental impact assessment as laid

down in the Presidential decree of 12 April 1996 transposing Directive 85/337/EEC (1)?

2.  Does  it  require  specific  environmental  impact  assessment  as  laid  down  in  Annex  II,  10(C)  of  Directive

97/3/EC (2)?

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2)  OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 30.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0450/98 and E-0451/98
given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1998)

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the works appear
to  be  projects  of  the  classes  listed  in  Annex  II  of  Council  Directive  85/337/EEC  of  27  June  1985  on  the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Such projects should be made
subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so
require.

Not being aware of the projects mentioned, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather
detailed information about them and to ensure the observance of Community law.

Council  Directive  97/3/EC,  quoted  by  the  Honourable  Member,  is  not  relevant.  This  amends  Directive
77/93/EEC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1). Directive 97/11/EC is the new directive
amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2). In Annex II paragraph 10(c) there is nothing related to the kind of project mentioned by the
Honourable Member. Under letter (b), (cid:145)urban development projects(cid:146) is listed, which exactly corresponds to what
is listed in Directive 85/337/EEC. In any case, the deadline for Member States to comply with Directive 97/11/EC
is 14 March 1999.

(1)  OJ L 26, 31.1.1977.
(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(98/C 310/88)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: Persistence of the franchise system for mobile and personal telecommunications

Telecommunications  services  were  completely  liberalized  in  all  the  countries  of  the  European  Union  on
1 January 1998.

Community Directives 90/388/EEC (1) et seq. provide for abolition of the franchise system in favour of licences.

Presidential decree 318 of 19 September 1997 (implementing Community directives in the telecommunications
sector) makes no mention of franchises.

1. Why has the Italian Government not abolished the state franchise tax and does it not conflict with European
regulations?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 446/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Interreg II programme
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: Spain, Structural Funds, cross-border cooperation, operational programme, principle of subsidiarity, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91998E0446 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0446

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 446/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Interreg II programme  


Official Journal C 304 , 02/10/1998 P. 0107 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/98 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)Subject: Interreg II programmeThe aim of the Interreg II programme on cross-border cooperation is to implement effective mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between frontier regions. With regard to each of the four measures concerning Spain under the Interreg II programme, will the Commission say what projects have been approved for the period 1994-1999, what funds have been granted, where the projects are located and what percentage of the total cost of each of the projects has been funded?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1998)As with the Structural Funds in general, the Interreg II ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.)) Community Initiative is implemented in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission therefore approved multiannual operational programmes, while the selection and approval of projects is left to the national, regional or local authorities, as appropriate.Under Interreg II, the Commission has allocated ECU 484.7 million (in 1994 prices) to Spain for Interreg IIA (development of the border areas and cross-border cooperation), ECU 80 million (in 1995 prices) for Interreg IIB (construction of interconnectors between the Portuguese and Spanish gas grids) and ECU 116.1 million (in 1996 prices) for Interreg IIC (regional planning), including approximately ECU 10 million for transnational cooperation projects and ECU 106 million to alleviate drought.Spain is currently involved in several cross-border or transnational operational programmes (OPs) in receipt of the above Community funding, namely:- OP for Spain-France, total volume: approximately ECU 140 million; total Community contribution: ECU 1.6 million;- OP for Spain-Portugal, total volume: approximately ECU 755 million; total Community contribution: ECU 52.0 million;- OP for Spanish regions bordering Morocco, total volume: approximately ECU 185 million; total Community contribution: ECU 100.0 million;- OP for the Mediterranean and the French and Italian Alps, total volume: approximately ECU 23 million; total Community contribution: ECU 13.3 million;- OP for South-West Europe, total volume: approximately ECU 10 million; total Community contribution: ECU 5.2 million.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 465/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. The failure of Member States to fulfil MAGP III targets for fishing fleets
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: EU programme, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, development plan, fishing fleet













EUR-Lex - 91998E0465 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0465

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 465/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. The failure of Member States to fulfil MAGP III targets for fishing fleets  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0069 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/98 by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission (27 February 1998)Subject: The failure of Member States to fulfil MAGP III targets for fishing fleetsWith reference to its declaration at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in April 1997, what action does the Commission envisage taking against those Member States that have not respected the multiannual guidance programmes within the time period envisaged or have not established the means to monitor the programmes or the means to inform the Commission of the exact situation of their fishing fleets with respect to the objectives of the programmes?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1998)The objectives of the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the period 1997-2001 were calculated by applying the appropriate reduction rates to the objectives for the end of 1996 that were fixed by the previous programmes. This means that those Member States that failed to respect the objectives for 1996 must make up the backlog as well as achieving any further reductions required during the period of the current programme.This does not mean that the 1996 deadline for meeting the objectives of the previous programmes has been superseded. Indeed, the Commission has taken the first step that might lead to legal action against those Member States that have failed to meet their obligations. A number of letters informing them of the possibility of an infringement procedure have been sent, and concern either the failure to meet the objectives of the programmes or the failure to keep details of the fleets up to date in the Community fleet register or the failure to re-measure the tonnage of the fleets in units of gross tonnes.The Commission is examining the responses of the Member States to these letters. A combined team of Community inspectors and officials has also begun a series of visits to all Member States in order to ensure that the necessary framework is in place to comply with the obligations of the MAGPs. If the Commission is not convinced that a genuine effort is being made to respect these obligations, it will not hesitate to take the necessary legal action against the Member States concerned. In the meantime, Community assistance has already been suspended for some Member States until the MAGP III objectives are achieved.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 473/98 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. State aids
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU Member State, European Regional Development Fund, State aid, Structural Funds, region, regional policy, statistics

2. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 304/113

(98/C 304/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0473/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: State aids

Can the Commission produce a league table showing by Member State comparative figures for state aided-areas
and designated areas under the ERDF, both by numbers of areas and by population coverage, showing the degree
of overlap between the two for the period 1994-99?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 1998)

The tables below reflect, in terms of population coverage, the extent of consistency between state aided-areas and
areas eligible for structural fund assistance under objective 1, 2, 5b and 6 for the programming period 1994 ›
1999. An indication of the number of areas concerned is not available nor meaningful (the size of the areas is
frequently not comparable).

Table  1:  Consistency  between  the  structural  funds  areas  and  the  state  aid  areas  at  Community  level  (%  of
Community population).

Regions eligible for
structural funds assistance

Regions not eligible for
structural funds assistance

Total

Regions eligible for national
regional state aid
Regions not eligible for
national regional state aid

TOTAL

44.0%

6.6%

50.6%

2.7%

46.7%

49.4%

46.7%

53.3%

100.0%

Table 2: Regions eligible for structural funds assistance by Member State (% of the Member State population)

B

31

DK

15

D

38

GR

100

E

84

F

IRL

I

L

45,9

100

54

42,6

NL

24

AT

P

40,6

100

FI

53

SE

25

UK

41

Table 3: Regions eligible for national regional state aid by Member State (% of the Member State population)

B

35

DK

20

D

GR

38,1

100

E

76

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

P

FI

SE

UK

42,4

100

48,9

42,7

17,3

35,1

100

41,6

18,5

38,2

Table 4: Regions eligible for structural funds assistance but not eligible for national regional state aid by Member
State (% of the Member State population)

B

0

DK

D

GR

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

AT

0

5.3

0

8.9

9.6

0

7.5

6.4

10.4

5.9

P

0

FI

SE

UK

12.6

8.7

9
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 469/98 of 27 February 1998 concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the export to certain third countries of wholly milled long grain rice issued in Regulation (EC) No 2097/97
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

L 60/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28. 2. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 469/98

of 27 February 1998

concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the
export to certain third countries of wholly milled long grain rice issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2097/97

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 under Commission Regulation (EC) No
2097/97 (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 decide, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation
(EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of
the tenders
submitted, to make no award;

Whereas on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article
13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 a maximum refund
should not be fixed;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted from
23 to 26 February 1998 in response to the invitation to
tender for the export refund on wholly milled long grain
rice falling within CN code 1006 30 67 to certain third
countries issued in Regulation (EC) No 2097/97.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 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. 22.
(4) OJ L 61, 7. 3. 1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15. 2. 1995, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 447/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Current situation in the onion sector
Date: 1998-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: bulb vegetable, common organisation of markets, intervention price, market intervention, market support, marketing, producer organisation, withdrawal from the market

C 310/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

The  EAGGF  contribution  represents  75%  of  expenditure,  as  Ireland  is  an  objective  1  area.  The  Community
contribution is limited to 50% in other regions.

As  a  proportion  of  total  EAGGF  expenditure  on  agri-environment  programmes,  the  amount  spent  on  REPS
represented 4% in 1995, 3% in 1996 and over 6% in 1997. For purposes of comparison, Ireland accounts for 3.3%
of the utilized agricultural area (UAA) of the Community.

Concerning the breakdown by type of measure, the Commission has not yet received a report from Ireland on the
implementation of the programme and the data supplied relates only to overall figures.

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Commission(cid:146)s report (2) on
the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, submitted to the Parliament on 4 December 1997.

(1)  OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.
(2)  COM(97) 620 final.

(98/C 310/83)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/98

by Concepcio· Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: Decentralization of the Interreg II programme

The aim of the Interreg II programme is to implement effective mechanisms to facilitate cooperation between
frontier regions.

Some countries have chosen to decentralize the office responsible for managing this programme to the region
concerned, such as France, which has established an office in Toulouse for the Midi-Pyre·ne·es region.

Does the Commission not consider that all Member States should be asked to decentralize the offices responsible
for  the  management  of  this  programme  to  bring  them  into  closer  contact  with  the  situation  in  the  region
concerned  and  with  the  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  while  at  the  same  time  improving  management
efficiency?

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

(2 April 1998)

In  the  guidelines  for  the  Interreg  II  operational  programmes (1),  the  Commission  stresses  the  importance  it
attaches to the establishment or development, in cooperation with the regional or local authorities concerned, of
shared institutional or administrative structures in border areas competent to implement projects. The Member
States have been encouraged to take this into account as far as possible.

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.

(98/C 310/84)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/98

by Concepcio· Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(27 February 1998)

Subject: Current situation in the onion sector

The reform of the COM in fruit and vegetables did not take into account the proposal submitted by the European
Parliament calling for onions to be included in Annex II to the relevant regulation to enable it to benefit from
withdrawal premiums.