do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 882/98 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. Number of reminders
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: European official, Member of the European Parliament, access to EU information, administrative procedure, correspondence, interinstitutional relations, translation, written question

C 310/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

(98/C 310/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Number of reminders

What is the average number of reminders which must be sent to an official of the Commission before a response
is forthcoming to an enquiry from a Member of the European Parliament?

(98/C 310/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Millennium and new technology

With the advance of new technology and the approach of the Millennium, am I in any danger of receiving a reply
to earlier correspondence to the Commission?

(98/C 310/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Length of time to reply to correspondence

What is the average length of time that it takes an official of the Commission to respond to correspondence from
a Member of the European Parliament?

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-0882/98, E-0883/98 and E-0884/98
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1998)

The Commission ensures that all correspondence is answered as quickly as possible. Much depends, however, on
whether or not the reply needs to be translated, whether different departments have to cooperate in the drafting,
and on the technical nature of the matters raised.

In the interests of effective cooperation between institutions, it has been decided that a letter from a Member of
Parliament  should  normally  be  answered  within  three  weeks.  If  a  letter  from  a  Member  of  Parliament  is
registered by the Commission(cid:146)s mail department on arrival, that department, which is part of the Secretariat-
General, will monitor replies and send a reminder to the departments concerned if they fail to answer within the
time limit. This procedure will not be affected by the approach of the millennium.

(98/C 310/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Access to documentation

Is  the  Commission  aware  of  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  6  February  1998  (Case  T-124/96)
concerning access to documentation? If so, does the Commission intend to comply with point 6 of this decision
which sets out a Code of Conduct? If so, does the Commission accept that point 6 states that the public will have
the widest possible access to documents held by the Commission and the Council (documents in this instance
meaning any written text, whatever its medium, which contains existing data and is held by the Commission or
Council)?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 904/98 by Kenneth COATES to the Commission. Concessionary fuel allowances
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: COATES, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, miner, motor fuel, reduced price, retired person

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/37

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1998)

Discussions on the Commission(cid:146)s proposals to amend the banana common market organization (CMO) are
1.
continuing  in  the  Council  and  the  Parliament.  The  Commission  proposals  are  intended  to  bring  Community
legislation into conformity with the Community(cid:146)s international obligations by 1st January 1999.

The Community has a single market for bananas, and there is no difference in treatment between Member
2.
States. Once imported bananas have been released into free circulation, they can be sold and consumed at any
point in the Community without restriction. The additional autonomous tariff rate quota of 353 000 tonnes is
proposed in order to take account of the increased consumption needs of the Community as a whole following
the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.

(98/C 354/70)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/98

by Kenneth Coates (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Concessionary fuel allowances

What Commission decisions, if any, require changes to be made to the concessionary fuel agreements for retired
miners and their widoes in the United Kingdom? What correspondence, if any, has the Commission had with the
UK authorities on this matter?

Is the Commission aware that the British Government first introduced, and then withdrew, restrictions on the
supply of concessionary fuel to retired mineworkers and their widows, saying that this (cid:145)comes about as a result of
European directives, and will mean that, if the directives are carried through, as is being proposed at present,
there could be a problem for people with concessionary fuel allowances(cid:146)?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 1998)

The changes made to the concessionary fuel agreements are not the direct result of any Commission decision.
These changes come about as a consequence of the transfer of British Coal(cid:146)s liabilities for concessionary fuel to
the department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in March 1995. The DTI, as a public contractor, has to ensure that the
procedure for the purchase of concessionary fuels complies with the provisions of Council Directive 93/36/EEC
of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (1). The Community principle
governing  such  a  directive  and  public  supply  contracts  is  the  ban  on  discriminatory  measures  and  unfair
treatment.

The Commission has not been notified about the latest situation. The completion of the British Government(cid:146)s
tender for the supply and distribution of concessionary smokeless fuels would be subject to a formal decision
from the Commission only if it were considered to be in breach of Community legislation.

(1)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 849/98 by Marco CELLAI Appeal to the Court of Justice by the Commission (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: CELLAI, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, infringement procedure (EU), language teaching, university

C 370/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

(1999/C 370/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0837/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: The content of television programmes and freedom of expression

There are four independent television channels in Finland, all of which are journalistically independent of
the state. One of them (Oy Yleisradio Ab) has ) for journalistic purposes and without sponsorship )
produced a series of programmes designed to promote the sale of Finnish-made products. The Commission
responded by writing a letter to the Finnish Ministry of Communications prohibiting the making of such
programmes.

In so doing, the Commission violated journalistic freedom of expression and interfered with the content of
television programmes. Does the Commission consider that its officials acted correctly in this matter, and if
so, on what EU treaty does it base its view?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 1999)

Further to its reply of 5 June 1998 (1), the Commission is now in a position to provide the following
information.

The honourable Member should refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question
E-931/98 from Mrs Myller and others (2).

(1) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.
(2) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 42.

(1999/C 370/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Appeal to the Court of Justice by the Commission

According to press reports in December last year the Commission has decided to appeal to the Court of
Justice with a view to bringing infringement proceedings against the Italian Government for the alleged
absence in Law 236/95 of transitional arrangements to safeguard the acquired rights of language assistants
(’collaboratori linguistici’, formerly known as ‘lettori’) already working in Italian universities in accordance
with Presidential Decree 382/80. This move essentially ignored the meaning of the judgment passed by
that Court (Section V) of 20 November 1997. The present request to bring proceedings is clearly based on
confusion between the terms ‘lecturer’ and ‘lettore’. The Commission in no way indicated how the Italian
Government has failed to respect the ‘acquired rights’, since the rules introduced in Law 236/95 guarantee
the safeguarding of the rights acquired by the parties concerned under the previous legal framework and
improve their treatment overall.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether and to what extent the Commission’s decision was influenced by articles in the press or views

expressed by European members of parliament;

2. what the legal bases for the appeal are?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 885/98 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. Access to documentation
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, access to EU information, administrative transparency, code of conduct, confidentiality, document, right to information

C 310/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 10. 98

(98/C 310/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Number of reminders

What is the average number of reminders which must be sent to an official of the Commission before a response
is forthcoming to an enquiry from a Member of the European Parliament?

(98/C 310/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Millennium and new technology

With the advance of new technology and the approach of the Millennium, am I in any danger of receiving a reply
to earlier correspondence to the Commission?

(98/C 310/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0884/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Length of time to reply to correspondence

What is the average length of time that it takes an official of the Commission to respond to correspondence from
a Member of the European Parliament?

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-0882/98, E-0883/98 and E-0884/98
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1998)

The Commission ensures that all correspondence is answered as quickly as possible. Much depends, however, on
whether or not the reply needs to be translated, whether different departments have to cooperate in the drafting,
and on the technical nature of the matters raised.

In the interests of effective cooperation between institutions, it has been decided that a letter from a Member of
Parliament  should  normally  be  answered  within  three  weeks.  If  a  letter  from  a  Member  of  Parliament  is
registered by the Commission(cid:146)s mail department on arrival, that department, which is part of the Secretariat-
General, will monitor replies and send a reminder to the departments concerned if they fail to answer within the
time limit. This procedure will not be affected by the approach of the millennium.

(98/C 310/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0885/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Access to documentation

Is  the  Commission  aware  of  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  6  February  1998  (Case  T-124/96)
concerning access to documentation? If so, does the Commission intend to comply with point 6 of this decision
which sets out a Code of Conduct? If so, does the Commission accept that point 6 states that the public will have
the widest possible access to documents held by the Commission and the Council (documents in this instance
meaning any written text, whatever its medium, which contains existing data and is held by the Commission or
Council)?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 840/98 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Division into regions and the structural funds
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: Ireland, Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, Structural Funds, eligibility criteria, less-favoured region, regional development, statistical nomenclature, town and country planning, town planning













EUR-Lex - 91998E0840 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0840

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 840/98 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Division into regions and the structural funds  


Official Journal C 323 , 21/10/1998 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/98 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1998)Subject: Division into regions and the structural fundsThe following question has already been put to Mrs Wulf-Mathies, Member of the Commission, at a recent meeting of the Economic and Social Committee's Section for Regional Development. I should like to repeat it so that the answer can serve as a basis for discussions in the European Parliament: Given the Commission's avowed intention to withdraw the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region from Objective 1, does it follow that Ireland will also be divided by the Commission into regions, on the basis of the same criteria, so that some of them can remain in Objective 1? In other words, if Ireland remains a single region for the purposes of eligibility for structural fund resources, on what basis is Portugal being divided in this way? What political criterion is involved?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1998)The Commission has proposed that eligibility for objective 1 should continue to be established by reference to a threshold of 75% of Community average gross domestic product (GDP) in PPS (purchasing power standards) at level 2 of the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS).The NUTS system was established in the 1970s to provide a single uniform breakdown of territorial units for the production of regional statistics. Since 1988, it has also been used for the classification of regions eligible for objective 1 of the structural funds.In almost all Member States, the various levels of the NUTS reflect the administrative division of the Member State. Ireland has always been a single NUTS 2 region, while Portugal has consisted of five NUTS 2 regions on the mainland, plus the Azores and Madeira. The NUTS system is generally stable over time, as changes only arise from the alteration of the administrative structure of a Member State. In the absence of such developments, the Commission has no plans to propose changes to the NUTS structure of either Member State.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 681/98 of 26 March 1998 concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2506/97
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, award of contract, import, maize

27. 3. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 94/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 681/98

of 26 March 1998

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import
of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 2506/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article
12(1) thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the maximum reduc-
tion in the duty on maize imported into Portugal was
opened pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
2506/97 (3);

Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1839/95 (4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1963/
95 (5), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation
(EEC) No 1766/92 and on the basis of the tenders noti-
fied, to make no award;

Whereas on the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles
6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum
reduction in the duty should not be fixed;

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

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 20
to 26 March 1998 in response to the invitation to tender
for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2506/97.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 March 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 345, 16. 12. 1997, p. 28.
(4) OJ L 177, 28. 7. 1995, p. 4.
(5) OJ L 189, 10. 8. 1995, p. 22.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 673/98 of 26 March 1998 on the issuing of export licences for wine-sector products
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, fruit product, viticulture, wine

27. 3. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 94/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 673/98

of 26 March 1998

on the issuing of export licences for wine-sector products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/
95 of 11 July 1995 on arrangements for issuing export
licences for wine-sector products (1), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 1354/97 (2), and in particular Article
3 (3) thereof,

Whereas Article 55 (7) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of
the market in wine (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2087/97 (4),
limits the grant of export refunds for
wine-sector products to the volumes and expenditure
contained in the Agreement on Agriculture concluded
during the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations;

Whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1685/95 lays
down the conditions under which the Commission may
take specific measures to prevent an overrun of
the
quantity laid down or the budget available under the said
Agreement;

Whereas, on the basis of information on export licence
applications available to the Commission on 25 March
1998, the quantity still available for the period until 30

April 1998 referred to in Article 1a(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 1685/95, could be exceeded unless the issue of export
licences with advance fixing of the refund is restricted;
whereas, therefore, a single percentage for the acceptance
of applications submitted between 18 and 24 March 1998
should be applied and the submission of applications and
the issue of licences suspended until 30 April 1998,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
Export liceces with advance fixing of the refund for
wine-sector products for which applications are submitted
between 18 and 24 March 1998 under Regulation (EC)
No 1685/95 shall be issued for 99,3 % of the quantities
requested.

2.
The issue of export licences for wine-sector products
for which applications are submitted from 25 March 1998
and the submission of export licence applications from 27
March 1998 shall be suspended until 30 April 1998.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 March 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 26 March 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 161, 12. 7. 1995, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 186, 16. 7. 1997, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 84, 27. 3. 1987, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 292, 25. 10. 1997, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 863/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Possible banking mergers in the UK
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: United Kingdom, bank, economic concentration, merger, restriction on competition

C 323/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 10. 98

(98/C 323/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/98

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Possible banking mergers in the UK

Concerns have been expressed recently in a number of quarters about possible forthcoming banking mergers in
the  UK.  The  Banking  Insurance  and  Finance  Union  (to  whom  I  am  an  adviser)  in  particular  has  expressed
concern that such mergers could lead to reductions in competition, employment and coverage of smaller rural
communities.

While recognising that the Commission must judge all merger cases on their individual merits:

1. 

Is the Commission aware of the situation regarding possible mergers in this sector in the UK; and

2.  does it have any observations to make on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1998)

The  Commission  is  aware  that  there  has  been  unconfirmed  press  speculation  about  the  possibility  of  future
banking  mergers  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Were  there  to  be  any  such  merger  situation  giving  rise  to  a
concentration  with  a  Community  dimension  to  which  the  so-called  Merger  Regulation,  Council  Regulation
(EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) would apply,
then it would be assessed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation.

Notifications of concentrations received by the Commission are made public by means of a notice in the Official
journal and interested parties are invited to comment.

(1)  OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

(98/C 323/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Legalisation of illegal immigrants

The report on the human rights situation in the European Union in 1996 that was adopted during the February
part-session singled out a number of Member States in which the residential status of persons living illegally in
their territory is legalised after a given period.

Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the

1.
Union(cid:146)s current legislation?

Does the Commission consider the approach adopted by these Member States to be inconsistent with the

2.
Schengen acquis?

3. What does the Commission intend to do as regards integrating the Schengen acquis into the Community
and such differences?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 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.