do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1323/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. European Union policy on tourism
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: EU policy, action programme, economic growth, job creation, tourism, tourism policy, tourist profession













EUR-Lex - 91998E1323 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1323

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1323/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. European Union policy on tourism  


Official Journal C 386 , 11/12/1998 P. 0112 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/98by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission(29 April 1998)Subject: European Union policy on tourismIn a few years tourism will be the most dynamic sector of the EU economy. Tourism not only helps to promote international understanding, it also creates many jobs for small and medium-sized businesses and is a sustainable long-term activity.Does the Commission not therefore consider that it is vital and urgent to introduce a real Community policy on tourism and what measures does it think are appropriate, given that, as yet, there does not really seem to be a legal basis for tourism?As part of an effective European policy on tourism, is it not essential to set up a European Tourism Office in one of the countries which is a major tourist destination?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission(12 June 1998)The Commission is aware of the economic, social and cultural importance of tourism, especially because of its contribution to employment in Europe.The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion concerning the urgent need for a formal Community policy on tourism, on condition that it is based on the principle of subsidiarity and does not intrude upon the responsibilities of the Member States. With a view to establishing a legal basis which ensures the continuity and effectiveness of Community measures in this area, the Commission will continue its efforts to obtain a Council Decision on a Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism, such as the one put forward in the 1996 proposal for a Council Decision on a First Multiannual Programme to assist European tourism - Philoxenia (1997-2000)(1) and the subsequent amended proposal(2).Given its existing responsibilities, however, the Commission does not consider the creation of a European Tourism Office appropriate.(1) OJ C 222, 31.7.1996.(2) OJ C 13, 14.1.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1227/98 by Marie-Paule KESTELIJN- SIERENS to the Commission. Health impact of kerosene
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KESTELIJN-SIERENS
Subjects: aviation fuel, cancer, epidemiology, health policy, research programme, toxicology

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/81

(98/C 354/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1227/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Health impact of kerosene

Does the Commission have accurate data on the harmful effect of kerosene? If so, to what extent is it harmful? Is
it true that kerosene, one ingredient of which is benzene, may cause leukaemia and cancer of the respiratory
tract? Is the data which the Commission possesses in this connection generally available?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 1998)

The Iuclid database of the Commission contains toxicological data on kerosene and these data are available to the
public.

Kerosene, a petroleum fraction with benzene as one of its components (less than 5%), has until now not been
classified  as  to  its  carcinogenicity  to  humans  ((cid:145)Monographs  on  the  Evaluation  of  Carcinogenic  Risks  to
Humans(cid:146),  International  agency  for  research  on  cancer).  There  is  limited  evidence  for  the  carcinogenicity  in
experimental animals (e.g. skin tumours in mice). Recent epidemiological studies on the potential carcinogenic
effects of kerosene (e.g. lung cancer) did not provide conclusive results.

The programme on biomedical and health research (Biomed 2) is supporting a project on (cid:145)Exposure to low levels
of benzene, interindividual biological variability and cancer risks(cid:146), which is coordinated by the National Cancer
Research Institute in Genoa and will provide results in 2001.

(98/C 354/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1232/98

by Anna Terro·n i Cus(cid:14)· (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 1998)

Subject: Budgetary implementation in Catalonia in 1996 and 1997

Will the Commission give details of the implementation of commitment and payment appropriations from the
Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the Community Initiatives in Catalonia for the financial years 1996 and
1997?

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

(30 April 1998)

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

(98/C 354/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1233/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(9 April 1998)

Subject: Budgetary implementation in Catalonia in 1996 and 1997

Will the Commission give details of the implementation of appropriations from the EAGGF›Guarantee Section
for the financial years 1996 and 1997 in Catalonia?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1230/98 by Marie-Paule KESTELIJN- SIERENS to the Commission. Planning of aiports on the basis of noise pollution caused to the surrounding area
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KESTELIJN-SIERENS
Subjects: European standard, air transport, airport, approximation of laws, environmental protection, noise, residential area, restriction on competition

C 402/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

(98/C 402/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Planning of aiports on the basis of noise pollution caused to the surrounding area

In its resolution A-0183/97 (1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy,
the European Parliament calls on the Commission (cid:145)to submit a proposal for a directive on obligatory standards
and the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system(cid:146) (para. 30).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does a uniform method exist for measuring noise pollution around airports? If not, is the Commission in

favour of introducing such a method?

2. Does the Commission favour the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system as a
way of clearly mapping the noise pollution of European airports, and as a basis for applying further measures
to the airports which cause the greatest level of noise pollution to the surrounding area?

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

1.
In the Community, there is currently no uniform method for the calculation of noise nuisance around
airports. In preparing a forthcoming legislative initiative on environmental noise, the Commission, in close
cooperation with Member States and specialist organisations, will assess the feasibility of a common noise unit of
measurement and methodology. Any future proposal by the Commission would be based on the outcome of this
technical assessment.

The Commission will similarly consider the issue of drawing up maps of effects of noise nuisance,

2.
including noise nuisance caused by aircraft around airports.

(98/C 402/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1231/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Reduction of noise pollution in areas around airports

In its resolution A-0183/97 (1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy,
the European Parliament calls on the Commission (cid:145)to lay down and standardize obligatory standards for aviation
to limit aircraft noise and noise levels in the areas around airports(cid:146) (para. 29).

The Commission:

1. What measures or initiatives has it taken since then to follow up this request?

2. Does it consider that European obligatory standards to limit noise pollution are the only way to prevent
certain regional airports from having a less strict noise pollution policy in order to strengthen their
competitive position against the major airports?

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1185/98 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. Producer responsibility (packaging waste) legislation
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, United Kingdom, environmental protection, national implementing measure, packaging, waste, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

C 50/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

(1999/C 50/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Producer responsibility (packaging waste) legislation

Is the Commission aware of the difficulties surrounding the application of the directive on packaging and
packaging waste in the United Kingdom caused by the criteria laid down for registering accredited reprocessors
entitled to issue packaging waste recovery notes?

Does the Commission agree with the exclusion of independent waste paper processors from consideration as
accredited reprocessors?

Is this not a restriction of trade which is not justified by the terms of the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties surrounding the application of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and
packaging waste (1) in the United Kingdom concerning the registration of accredited reprocessors.

The Commission is currently examining the conformity of the United Kingdom(cid:146)s transposing measures in
relation to this Directive. Within this examination the internal market implications of the United Kingdom(cid:146)s
implementation of Directive 94/62/EC will be considered.

The Honourable Member may wish to send any further information on this matter directly to the Commission so
that it can be considered within this examination.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(1999/C 50/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Staff deployment

How many of the staff of all categories in DG XVII have the same nationality as the Commissioner responsible
for that Directorate-General? How does this compare with the number of staff having the Commissioner(cid:146)s
nationality in the Commission as a whole?

How many staff who have the Commissioner(cid:146)s nationality have been recruited to DG XVII since the beginning of
1995, and how does this compare with the overall level of recruitment of staff having the Commissioner(cid:146)s
nationality since 1995?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

On 1 April 1998, the number of staff of the Directorate general for energy who were of the nationality referred to
in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question was as follows:

Category A

24 out of 191 posts occupied;

Category B

10 out of 183 posts occupied;

Category C

7 out of 133 posts occupied;

Total

41 out of 507 posts occupied;

In the Commission as a whole the situation of this nationality is as follows:

Category A

341 out of 6 007 posts occupied;

Category B

131 out of 3 564 posts occupied;
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (codified version)'
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: codification of EU law, common organisation of markets, farm price support, goatmeat, sheepmeat

C 214/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.7.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
(EC) on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (codified
version)’

(98/C 214/19)

On 27 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Quevedo
Rojo.

At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 113 votes to one, with seven abstentions.

1.
The Committee approves the Commission proposal to codify Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat
and goatmeat.

The regulation has undergone a number of substantial amendments. The proposal to

2.
produce a codified version is thus justified on grounds of rationality and clarity.

The Committee is also pleased that the proposal meets a need which it has often

3.
underscored in the past.

Brussels, 29 April 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1168/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. General aviation
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: air quality, air transport, airport, civil aviation, noise, transport infrastructure

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/85

(98/C 402/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: General aviation

General aviation constitutes by far the largest sector of European aviation, with more aircraft, more flyers and
more operating sites than any other area.

How does general aviation fit into the Commission(cid:146)s air transport strategy, and what work is the Commission
doing to ensure that general aviation is provided with a level playing field compared with commercial air
transport?

(98/C 402/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: General aviation aircraft and an integrated transport policy

Does the Commission recognize the inclusion of general aviation as a necessary element within an EU integrated
transport policy?

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-1167/98 and E-1353/98
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

Because it has a commercial character, general aviation is fully covered is fully by the third package of air
transport liberalisation measures. Consequently, it benefits from full access to the Community internal market on
an equitable basis like other commercial air transport.

In view of the importance of general aviation, the Commission also tries to ensure that operators have the right to
as much access as possible at congested airports. Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common
rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (1) is applicable to this sector.

(1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

(98/C 402/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1168/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: General aviation

In recent years, the number of aerodromes throughout the EU being closed or sold for other industrial purposes
has increased. This has left general aviation increasingly dependent on fewer airfields.

While seeking to apply reasonable environmental and noise pollution standards, does the Commission recognize
that there is considerable pressure on general aviation and on the ever-dwindling numbers of aerodromes with
appropriate facilities to serve it?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1163/98 by Amedeo AMADEO , Salvatore TATARELLA to the Commission. Projects financed under LIFE II
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament, TATARELLA
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, Italy, co-financing, database, disclosure of information, environmental protection, information network, project evaluation

C 13/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.1.1999

The criteria for distributing this amount among Member States will be eligible population, national and regional
prosperity and severity of structural problems, particularly unemployment.

This will allow Community aid to be concentrated on the regions in greatest difficulty, including the most remote
regions. The breakdown between regions of a Member State of the amount allocated to it for a given Objective
will however be decided by the Member State.

(1) COM(98) 131.

(1999/C 13/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1140/98

by JosØ ApolinÆrio (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: ERDF Article 10/Azores

In view of the specific nature of Portugal(cid:146)s Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a
special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), would the Commission give details of the amount of Community
support received by the region under Article 10 of the ERDF during the 1994-1999 period? What does the
Commission envisage as regards support during the 2000-2006 financial period?

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

(27 May 1998)

During the current funding period 1994-1999 the Azores region has not participated in the projects approved
under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) 4254/88
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 2052/89 as regards the European regional
development fund (1).

For the next funding period 2000-2006 it is envisaged that support for innovative measures and pilot projects will
continue. Under the Commission(cid:146)s proposals (2), up to 0.7 % of the structural funds would be allocated to this
activity. It is not possible to say how much might go to any given region.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(2) COM(98) 131 final.

(1999/C 13/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Salvatore Tatarella (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Projects financed under LIFE II

(29 April 1998)

In July 1997, the Commission selected 188 projects to be co-financed under the terms of the financial instrument
for the environment (Life II).

Could the Commission state whether the projects selected included any relating to Italy, and outline their main
features?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 1998)

In 1997 28 Italian projects were jointly financed under LIFE II. Just as every other year the list of those projects
has been published in the Official Journal. (1) In addition a data base containing a description of all of the projects
funded under LIFE from 1992 onwards is available at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/
home.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1236/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Inspections under the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: aid system, beef, suckler cow, veterinary inspection

C 354/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1998)

The Commission does not generally have national figures broken down by region. However, since 1997 Spain
has been declaring expenditure by autonomous region for those regions which have approved paying agencies.
The  Commission  can  therefore  provide  the  information  required  for  Catalonia:  ESP  41  000  million  (roughly
ECU 250.3 million) in 1997.

(98/C 354/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1235/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for goat farming

Can the Commission confirm that agricultural subsidies for goats are only on a par with sheep subsidies in those
Member  States  which  have  a  tradition  of  eating  goat  meat  under  the  European  Union  Sheep  and  Goat  Meat
Regime?

Has the Commission investigated the possible disparities that may result from this policy and the effect it has on
goat breeding in countries which are not classified as having a tradition of eating goat meat?

Does the Commission foresee a change in the future which would ensure an equal distribution of subsidies for
goats in all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

The Commission can confirm that the payment of the premium for goats is restricted to those regions in the
Community where the rearing of goats for meat is a traditional practice comparable to sheep farming.

The  Commission  does  not  consider  that  the  present  regime  creates  disparities.  The  purpose  of  the  annual
premium payable in the framework of the sheep and goatmeat regime is to support meat producers. To be eligible
for  such  payments  the  rearing  of  goats  must  therefore  be  mainly  directed  towards  meat  production  and  the
techniques for rearing goats and sheep must be similar in nature. In Member States where there is no tradition of
eating goat meat this is not the case, as goats are principally reared for the production of wool or dairy products.

The Commission does not foresee extending the premium regime to include goat producers whose main activity
is not the production of meat.

(98/C 354/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Inspections under the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

With regard to the requirements for the status of premium producers under the Suckler Cow premium Scheme
and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Scheme, is the Commission aware whether there is any discretion on the
rule (cid:145)visits for inspection purposes will occur without notice(cid:146) (SCP 1997/HCLA 1998)?

Can an inspection be refused where there are mitigating circumstances, such as insufficient staff to handle the
animals?