do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1433/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: ACP countries, EU financing, European Development Fund, West Africa, fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery research, fishery resources, international cooperation

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/127

(98/C 386/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in third countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in West African countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Of the total number of projects financed from the funds earmarked for cooperation allocated by DG VIII to West
African countries, will the Commission say what percentage of the said funds has been assigned to projects to
develop the fisheries sector?

(98/C 386/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Comission indicate the nature and cost of the fisheries cooperation projects implemented or financed by
DG VIII over the past five years in the following countries: South Africa, Namibia, Gabon, Senegal, Equatorial
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, C(cid:244)te d(cid:146)Ivoire, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Angola, Ghana and Cameroon?

(98/C 386/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say which have been the 15 projects to develop the fisheries sector, implemented in West
African countries, to which DG VIII has allocated the most resources, and indicate the sum involved in each
instance?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1417/98 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Incompatibility with Community legislation of law No 30/97 and the hunting season calendar of the Emilia- Romagna region.
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: Emilia-Romagna, bird, hunting regulations, infringement procedure (EU), protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/129

The intention is to produce BREFs covering all IPPC sectors by the year 2002. The first BREFs are expected to
appear early in 1999.

(98/C 402/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/98

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Equal treatment of citizens of the European Union as employees of businesses within the EU

Schering A.G., which operates in Berlin, Germany, has invited its employees to subscribe to a share issue.
The offer was open to employees of the parent company and of its German subsidiaries, but not to employees of
subsidiaries working in other EU Member States.

How will the Commission ensure that groups of enterprises › both parent companies and subsidiaries › in the
various EU Member States treat all citizens of the Union equally with regard to employee share issues?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The Commission has already for a number of years worked on the general issue of financial participation of
employees. In 1991 the Commission published a study on the (cid:145)Promotion of employee participation in profits and
enterprise results(cid:146) known as the Pepper I report. On the basis of this report Council Recommendation
92/443/EEC (1) on the subject was adopted in 1992. The Commission undertook to present a report to the
Parliament, the Council and the Economic and social committee on the application of the recommendation on the
basis of information supplied by the Member States. This report, known as the Pepper II report, was adopted by
the Commission in January 1997 (2).

In the recently adopted social action programme 1998-2000 (3), the Commission has undertaken to launch an
initiative to encourage greater employee financial participation in companies by highlighting good practice and
identifying obstacles, building on the 1992 Recommendation. Identifying obstacles that multinational companies
face when introducing financial participation schemes in general and employee share ownership schemes in
particular will be one of the essential aims of this initiative.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.
(2) COM(96) 697 final.
(3) COM(98) 256 final.

(98/C 402/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Incompatibility with Community legislation of law No 30/97 and the hunting season calendar of the

Emilia-Romagna region.

The Emilia-Romagna (Italy) regional authority approved the new hunting season calendar on 31 March of this
year in connection with regional law No 30/97 which stipulates, among other things, that during the season
running from 20 September 1998 to 31 January 1999 it will be possible to hunt protected species such as sparrows
(up to 31 December) and starlings.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1418/98 by Riccardo NENCINI to the Council. Collective redundancy
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, NENCINI
Subjects: European undertaking, Tuscany, application of EU law, collective dismissal, labour mobility, merger, plastics industry, transfer of businesses

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/33

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 1998)

1.

The request was made by letter to France dated 17 December 1997.

The French authorities replied on 8 April 1998 providing detailed observations on the recent developments

2.
which have occurred in relation to the problem and the various actions taken.

3.

The Commission will in due course examine what further action to take in the light of this reply.

(1999/C 13/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/98

by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Council

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Collective redundancy

Collective redundancy proceedings involving about 40 individuals are under way at the company (cid:145)Replay(cid:146), which
manufactures plastic products and is based in Scarperia in the province of Florence. The owner, S.P. Metal, whose
head office is in Paris, sold the company to A.C.P. Plastic, whose head office is in England, while mobility
procedures in respect of workers were under way. The company(cid:146)s management appears to have failed to comply
with the Council Directive of 17.2.1975 and subsequent amendments, and with the Council Directive of
14.2.1977 and subsequent amendments, in particular Articles 3, 4, and 6.

Does the Council intend to investigate the possible failure by the management of the company (cid:145)Replay(cid:146) to comply
with the afore-mentioned directives?

Reply

(24 September 1998)

The Council is not empowered to give an opinion on infringements of Community legislation. It is for the
Commission to ensure application of Community law, possibly with Court of Justice supervision.

(1999/C 13/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1440/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Euro 1999

The Commission Report on progress towards convergence and recommendation with a view to the transition to
the third stage of economic and monetary union (COM(98) 1999 final, 25.03.1998, p. 78) asserts that the Member
States(cid:146) pleasing performance on the inflation front is due to factors such as wage restraint and the consequent
reasonable rise in unit labour costs.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, how likely is it that moderate inflation rates can be maintained if France introduces
labour reform by reducing working time to 35 hours a week?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Inflation trends in the Member States depend on a variety of factors. On the domestic front, these include unit
labour costs, profit margins and changes in indirect taxes. Where external factors are concerned, inflation is
linked among other things to movements in exchange rates and commodity prices.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1405/98 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Discretionary nature and transparency of public notices of access to structural funds
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Structural Funds, access to EU information, administrative transparency, dissemination of EU information, distribution of aid, eligibility criteria, regional government, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91998E1405 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1405

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1405/98 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Discretionary nature and transparency of public notices of access to structural funds  


Official Journal C 096 , 08/04/1999 P. 0005 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/98by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission(11 May 1998)Subject: Discretionary nature and transparency of public notices of access to structural fundsA number of regional authorities (for example, in the Marche Region) approve the public notices of access to funding by the Community's structural funds under objective 5b, within the framework of the Single Programme Document to be submitted to the Commission, without specifying the level of resources made available for each action.1. Does the Commission not think that the use of this procedure undermines the principles of transparency that should govern the actions of the European Union?2. Does the Commission not consider that citizens wishing to benefit from contributions made available under a specific measure or action have the right to know how much funding is available for the measures or actions in relation to which they have applied for funding?3. Does the Commission not think that the procedure enabling administrations to move resources, once applications have been made, from one measure to another or from one action to another, in an entirely discretionary way, is wrong?4. Given that such procedures undermine the principles of neutrality and transparency, does the Commission not consider it to be a bad thing that this might generate resentment and mistrust of regional and European institutions in the minds of European citizens?5. What steps does the Commission intend to take to solve these problems?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(10 June 1998)The Commission believes that the procedures for using the Structural Funds must be as transparent as possible. In the case of the single programming documents (SPDs) for Objective 5(b) in particular, the total budget allocated to each measure is recorded in the programme; it thus constitutes information in the public domain and is available to the citizen. The Monitoring Committee can revise the budget amounts but any change has to be approved by Commission decision.With a view to subsidiarity and to avoid excessive rigidity in implementation, provision is not made in the Objective 5(b) SPDs to allocate funding below the measure level - the base on which the programme rests. Such allocation, where appropriate, is the exclusive responsibility of the authority responsible for implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1455/98 by Anne McINTOSH to the Council. VAT rates
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MCINTOSH
Subjects: VAT rate, heritage protection, labour force, provision of services, reduced price, tax harmonisation

C 323/132

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 10. 98

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1396/98 and E-1397/98

(6 July 1998)

The issues the Honourable Member raises in Written Question No 1396/98 and in points 4 and 5 of her Written
Question No 1397/98 do not fall within the Council(cid:146)s sphere of competence.

The matters referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 of Written Question No 1397/98 have never been discussed by the
Council.

(98/C 323/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/98

by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council

(11 May 1998)

Subject: VAT rates

Does  the  Presidency-in-Office  support,  and  would  it  be  prepared  to  use,  the  discretion  granted  by  the
Commission  in  its  Communication  SEC(97)2089  final  on  reduced  VAT  rates  for  selected  labour-intensive
services?

Is  the  Presidency-in-Office  prepared  to  accept  that  this  discretion  applies  to  the  maintenance  and  repair  of
churches and historic listed buildings?

Would the Presidency-in-Office consider this as part of the Commission(cid:146)s review of the harmonization of VAT
throughout the European Union?

Answer

(6 July 1998)

The  Commission  communication  to  which  the  Honourable  Member  refers  in  her  question  is  currently  being
examined within the Council(cid:146)s subsidiary bodies. Until these proceedings are completed, the Council cannot
reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(98/C 323/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: Inclusion  by  Netherlands  Central  Planning  Office  of  reduced  EU  budget  contribution  by  the
Netherlands in calculation of estimated costs of implementing parties(cid:146) election manifestoes

Is the Commission aware of the report (cid:145)Keuzes in kaart › economische effecten van vijf verkiezingsprogram-
ma(cid:146)s(cid:146)  (Reviewing  the  options  ›  economic  impact  of  five  election  manifestoes)  by  the  Netherlands  Central
Planning Office, particularly the section (cid:145)Reduction of contributions to the EU budget(cid:146) in Annex 6?

If no agreement were to be reached within the Council concerning the new Financial Perspective › for example
on  account  of  a  veto  by  the  Netherlands  ›  would  an  extension  of  the  current  Financial  Perspective  be
(cid:145)conditional on unanimity(cid:146), as the Central Planning Office claims?

Does the view expressed by the Central Planning Office accord with the decision-making procedure described in
Paragraph 25 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 29 October 1993 on the Financial Perspective? Is it true
that (cid:145)as far as the Council is concerned, the IIA lays down that it may reject an extension by a qualified majority.
However, the Member States have agreed that in practice there should be a qualified majority in favour of an
extension ...(cid:146) (1)?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1407/98 by Maren GÜNTHER to the Commission. EU research aid for Upper Bavaria in general and for the Munich Technical University in particular
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, GUENTHER
Subjects: Bavaria, EU aid, research and development, research body, university

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/97

(98/C 354/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1407/98

by Maren Gu¤nther (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: EU research aid for Upper Bavaria in general and for the Munich Technical University in particular

Would the Commission kindly answer the following questions concerning EU research aid for Upper Bavaria:

1.  What was the total amount of R&D aid for Upper Bavaria in 1997?

2.  How was the aid allocated among the various contractors (large industrial undertakings and their research

institutes, SMUs, Munich University, independent research institutes, etc.)?

3.  What aid was allocated to the research institutes of the Munich Technical University (MTU) in Garching?

What amounts were allocated to what institutes within the MTU?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 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 354/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Timeshare Directive

How many, and which, Member States have not yet implemented the Timeshare Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

Article  12  of  Directive  94/47/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  26  October  1994  on  the
protection  of  purchasers  in  respect  of  certain  aspects  of  contracts  relating  to  the  purchase  of  the  right  to  use
immovable properties on a timeshare basis (1) lays down 29 April 1997 as the deadline for transposition of the
Directive for all the Member States.

The  Member  States  that  so  far  have  not  incorporated  the  Directive  in  their  national  legislation  are  Belgium,
Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Luxembourg.

The Member States that have already notified the Commission of their national implementing measures are:

›  Denmark: Law No 234 of 2 April 1997;

›  Germany: Law of 20 December 1996 › BGB No 70 of 31 December 1996;

› 

Ireland: SI 204 1997 › Timesharing;

›  The Netherlands: Law of 26 March 1997 › SB No 147 1997;

›  Austria: Law TNG › BGB of 27 March 1997, I No 32/1997;

›  Portugal: Decreto-lei No 275/93 of 5.8.1993 › Diario de Republica No 182 of 5 August 1993, I Series-A;

›  Finland: Law No 1162 of 11 December 1997 (OJ p.4108);

›  Sweden: SFS 1997:218 of 3 June 1997;

›  United Kingdom: Timesharing regulations 1997, Consumer Protection 1997 › No 1081.

(1)  OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1445/98 by Pierre LATAILLADE to the Commission. Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, LATAILLADE
Subjects: EU publication, European Commission, application of EU law, approximation of laws, machinery, small and medium-sized enterprises, technical regulations, user guide













EUR-Lex - 91998E1445 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1445

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1445/98 by Pierre LATAILLADE to the Commission. Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0004 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/98by Pierre Lataillade (UPE) to the Commission(11 May 1998)Subject: Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machineryThe Commission has prepared an updated version of the "Guide to the Directive on machinery" (Directive 89/392/EEC(1), amended in 1991 and 1993) that it published in 1993. The Guide has been immensely useful to the manufacturers and users of machinery, and particularly to small firms. The updated version of the Guide, about which there is very broad agreement within industry and in most of the Member States, has been eagerly awaited for more than a year.1. What are the reasons for this delay?2. Does the Commission intend to publish it?3. When?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission(1 October 1998)The Commission is pleased to have the Honourable Member's support in its activities to ensure the transparency of Community legislation and is willing to support the publication of a guide in the near future.In 1993, a brochure seemed to be the most effective way of meeting firms' needs. The technological situation has changed in the meantime. The draft guide is three times as voluminous and needs to be updated frequently. As it is cheaper, faster and more flexible to send the guide electronically, the Commission plans to provide access to it via the information pages it publishes on the Internet,(2) it being understood that its sole purpose is to facilitate the implementation of Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the approximation of the legislation of the Member States on machinery and that is does not provide a binding legal interpretation. As far as a paper publication is concerned, the subsidy will depend on the budgetary means available since the Commission has to give priority to the publication of its own documents.(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 9.(2) http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dgiii/directs/dg3/index.htm.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1522/98 by Antonio TAJANI to the Commission. Funding for the Marches and Umbria following the earthquake
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, TAJANI
Subjects: Marches, State aid, Umbria, aid to undertakings, disclosure of information, earthquake, financial aid, natural hazard

C 402/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

The Commission considers that this is a commonsense practice which should receive Parliament(cid:146)s approval.
Parliament(cid:146)s own rules recognise the need for concision (see e.g. annexe II point 7 concerning question time). As
a budgetary authority, and responsible for publication of the answers in the Official journal (see article 42 of
Parliament(cid:146)s rules), Parliament will appreciate the need to economise resources.

However in the case of the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question P-3277/97 the Commission has now decided
to remedy the situation by a new transmission of the complete answer.

(98/C 402/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1522/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Funding for the Marches and Umbria following the earthquake

Italian legislation provides for financial measures in support of the (cid:145)stricken and damaged areas(cid:146) of the Marches
and Umbria following the earthquake of 26 September 1997.

In circular No 234425 of 29 December 1997 the Italian Ministry for Industry laid down the arrangements for
drawing up two further special categories for the acceptance of applications for the aid to businesses referred to in
Law No 428/1992, subject to approval by the European Commission.

When does the Commission intend to issue the directives concerning aid to the Italian regions hit by the
earthquake?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

The Commission is able to inform the Honourable Member that it is in the process of investigating the aid scheme
for businesses in Marche and Umbria introduced by Law No 364/97, which was notified on 23 December 1997,
amending Law No 488/92. In its investigation, it asked for the scheme(cid:146)s detailed implementing rules to be
notified. To date, no notification has been made but it is probable that those rules are in fact set out in the Circular
referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission must therefore await the information it has requested before it can decide whether the scheme is
compatible with Articles 92 et seq. of the EC Treaty.

(98/C 402/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1528/98

by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Road accidents involving lorries in the EU

1. Will the Commission state how many accidents involving lorries (vehicles over 3 500 kg) occur annually in
the EU?

2. What measures have individual EU Member States introduced to reduce the number of road accidents
involving lorries, and what effects have they had, in particular the Dutch law prohibiting overtaking by lorries on
certain stretches of road?