do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2100/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/ EEC
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: animal life, bird, complaint to the Commission, national implementing measure, protected species, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91998E2100 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2100

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2100/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/ EEC  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/98by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: EU Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EECSeveral years ago the French nature conservation organization SEPANSO submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning the massive capture of songbirds and migratory birds in the French department of Les Landes. The complaint is being dealt with by the Commission under the reference number 213/91.What progress has been made on this matter?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(23 September 1998)In 1993 the Commission closed the file on complaint No 91/213 concerning the hunting in France of the ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana), though it continued to address the problem of French law failing to provide satisfactory protection for the species.Accordingly, on 24 June 1998 the Commission decided, on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in view of France's failure to comply with the judgment of 24 April 1988 (Commission v. France, C-252/85).The Commission's decision was based on the fact that French regulations on the protection of wild bird species still does not indicate correctly all the prohibitions imposed by Article 5(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.(1) Moreover, the same regulations also fail to indicate all the bird species to be protected under Article 5 of the Directive, including the ortolan bunting.The complainant has been informed of the Commission's decision.(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2126/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Enlargement - external border controls
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Austria, Central and Eastern European countries, EU police cooperation, EU programme, Schengen Agreement, border control, enlargement of the Union, external border of the EU, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91998E2126 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2126

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2126/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Enlargement - external border controls  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/98by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission(10 July 1998)Subject: Enlargement - external border controlsIn its reply of 27 May 1998 to Question P-1257/98(1) concerning external border controls, the Commission states that it will be possible to give detailed answers to the questions I raised only after the Council has defined the Schengen acquis and after its transposition by the applicant countries has been reviewed.1. When does the Commission believe that the definition of the Schengen acquis is likely to be completed, and how will information be supplied concerning the results of the review?2. How long is the review of transposition in the Member States likely to take?The Commission also says that it is primarily up to the applicant countries to overcome the inadequacies, but that the "Commission" will support their efforts through existing Community programmes.3. From which specific programmes has such support so far been given, or are there plans to give it during the current budgetary period, how much funding is being provided (as a percentage of the total costs involved) and what nominal amounts are involved (in ECU)?4. To what extent have the applicant countries taken advantage of the opportunity to cover their co-financing contribution from Phare appropriations?5. According to the Commission's estimate, what percentage of expenditure on all Community programmes is being used to assist the applicant countries?6. Austria is among the more recent Schengen Member States, and the cost of meeting the criteria regarding external border controls was particularly high because of its location (its long Schengen external border). Has Austria received any assistance in meeting the cost from Community programmes?(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 85.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2091/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Suspension of end-of-service payments to the financial police
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, cessation of trading, competence of the Member States, equal treatment, indemnification, liquidation

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/147

It is, furthermore, the intention of the Commission to include in the proposal a requirement that animals which
have been stunned must be bled by incising both carotid arteries or the vessels from which they arise in order to
produce a rapid bleed-out and death, and in addition provisions laying down minimum stunning currents for the
various species concerned.

(1999/C 13/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Suspension of end-of-service payments to the financial police

The Prodi government has suspended the payment of end-of-service lump sums from the financial police
assistance fund. In some cases lump sums have been paid to some until the available funds were used up and not
to others, who have thus been arbitrarily deprived of their rights

Often, despite the existence of an Italian state decree suspending them, payments have been made so that there
has been a serious difference of treatment between citizens.

1. Does the Commission not consider the Prodi government(cid:146)s decision to suspend payment of an acquired right

such as the end-of-service lump sum to be arbitrary?

2. Does it not consider the payment of end-of-service lump sums to only a lucky few and not to others with the

same rights to be discriminatory?

3. Does it not think it should intervene vis-(cid:224)-vis the Italian authorities to ensure impartial treatment of citizens if

nothing else?

4. What is its general reaction?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1998)

Compensation to workers in connection with the end or cancellation of a contract or employment relationship is
currently not covered by Community legislation. The national legislation of each Member State determines the
amounts of and procedures for the payment of such compensation.

The decision of the Italian Government concerning the implementation of the (cid:145)Trattamento di Fine Rapporto(cid:146) is
exclusively a matter for the national authorities and, in particular, for the relevant courts before which any
question of law in this field should be raised.

(1999/C 13/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2093/98

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Competition for fish farmers in Denmark

(30 June 1998)

Under Article 3 of Environment Ministry order No 224 of 5 April 1989 fresh water fish farmers in Denmark are
restricted as regards the maximum annual consumption of feedingstuffs. This means that in practice there are
restrictions on fish farm production.

As far as I know there are no such restrictions in other EU countries.

Are the Danish rules limiting fish farm production in keeping with the provisions of the Treaty on competition?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2087/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. Harmful effects of CS gas
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: EU law, EU programme, chemical product, consumer protection, dangerous substance, directory, health policy, occupational safety

C 118/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the answer given to Written Question
E-2510/97 by Mr Rauti (1).

It would note that, on its reading of the judgment referred to by the Honourable Member, the
Constitutional Court refused to rule that constitutional rights had been infringed. The Court had simply
referred to the right of the Italian legislature to modify the unsatisfactory tax treatment of single-income
families. In any event, the Commission would have no jurisdiction to make representations to the Italian
authorities if the Italian constitution were infringed.

(1) OJ C 117, 16.4.1998.

(1999/C 118/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Fatal accidents in Greece

(10 July 1998)

According to Eurostat No 1298 of 2 June 1998, the figures for road accidents in Greece are the most
disturbing in the Union in that it is the only Member State in which fatal road accidents increased between
1989 and 1995, by 29 %, whereas in most countries the number fell.

What, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, are the main reasons for these alarming figures? What measures will it
take in cooperation with the Greek Government to deal with this situation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, Greece is the only Member State where an increase in the
number of road accidents has occured in recent years.

The Commission considers that the prime responsibility for analysing and identifying the possible causes
for such negative trends is with national authorities. However, the Commission provides tools and
statistics to the individual Member States (e.g. the CARE database) in order to enable them to compare
national situations. When making such comparisons, specific national circumstances should clearly be
kept in mind, particularly those relating to risk exposure where parameters such as numbers of vehicles,
demographic patterns, infrastructure can have a quite significant influence.

The Commission continues to be ready to discuss the relevant issues with national authorities whenever
Member State administrations consider that such an approach could have productive effects in increasing
safety.

(1999/C 118/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Harmful effects of CS gas

Following the increasing concerns about the harmful effects of CS gas, will the Commission undertake a
study into the risks to human health of orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2176/98 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: Community support framework, EU aid, building materials, co-financing, defective product, project evaluation, public works, quality standard, regional development, supervisory body

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/51

(1999/C 96/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Castor shipments in breach of EU law

Can the Commission say what action it will take following the violation by Member States of EU legislation on
radiation protection, namely Council Directives 92/3/Euratom (1) of 3 February 1992 and 96/29/Euratom (2) of
13 May 1996, in the case of the Castor shipments?

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.
(2) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

It should be noted that Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the
protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation will
only come into effect in May 2000. Directives 80/836/Euratom of 15 July 1980 (1) and 84/467/Euratom of
3 September 1984 (2) remain valid until that time. However, the Commission has no evidence of any breach of the
provisions of any of these three directives or of Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision
and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community.

As to possible future actions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its statement in the Plenary
session of the Parliament of 17 June 1998 (3).

(1) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.
(2) OJ L 265, 5.10.1984.
(3) Verbatim report of proceedings 17 June 1998, provisional edition, p. 20.

(1999/C 96/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/98

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects

The report drawn up following the quality control of projects carried out under the second CSF concludes that
nearly half of the regional development projects jointly funded by the EU are technically deficient and will have
to be rectified or even redone because they were carried out on the basis of faulty studies or using sub-standard
materials or do not comply with the stipulations of the contract.

The report states that sample quality controls of materials revealed that about 50 % of contractors had not
complied with specifications. This applied to all materials except asphalt, for which the figure rose to around
70 %.

Is this information correct and what does the Commission intend to do to ensure that measures are taken at
government level to compel the contractors responsible to carry out the necessary alterations or the entire project
again in order to comply with their contractual obligations, wherever these have been breached?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2112/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. East Timor
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: East Timor, development aid, education, health policy, humanitarian aid, nutrition, water supply

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 50/129

There is a danger that ENEL will use the profits guaranteed by the energy monopoly to finance a different
business, which would blatantly conflict with national rules and Community directives.

Is the Commission aware of this manoeuvre, and what does it intend to do about it?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 1998)

The Commission is aware of ENEL(cid:146)s investments in the Wind consortium, which reflect a trend emerging in a
number of Member States: companies with a monopoly in electricity generation are branching out into other
sectors so as to offset potential loss of revenue › resulting from the gradual introduction of competition into the
electricity market › with revenue from other sectors.

Such practices are not contrary to Community law. None of the Community telecommunications directives
require the Member States to prohibit companies with exclusive or special rights in sectors other than
telecommunications from investing monopoly-derived funds in the telecommunications sector. They merely
require such companies to present separate accounts for their activities as suppliers of voice telephony or
networks and their other activities.

This requirement has been met because Wind is legally separate from ENEL and has other shareholders.
Financial and commercial relations between the two companies are therefore sufficiently transparent for the
authorities to be able to intervene in the event of any infringement of competition rules.

At all events, the national regulatory authorities responsible for the telecommunications and energy sectors and
the antitrust authority can monitor the situation as appropriate, without prejudice to any action which the
Commission may take if Community law is infringed.

(1999/C 50/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: East Timor

Further to its answer to parliamentary question (E-1050/98) (1) will the Commission outline the proposals under
consideration for humanitarian aid and development to East Timor?

(1) OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 110.

Answer given by Mr Mar(cid:237)n on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

The health and education sectors are envisaged as possible sectors for intervention. The Commission is, however,
not in a position to outline details of the proposals since they are subject to negotiation with the organisations
concerned.

The Commission carried out an evaluation mission in May 1998. The principal areas of possible intervention
were identified as health, nutrition and water supply.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2180/98 by Ben FAYOT to the Commission. Duties on wine
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, FAYOT
Subjects: alcohol, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, restriction on competition, tax harmonisation, wine

C 96/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No P-2120/98 by
Mr Trakatellis (1).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 131.

(1999/C 96/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/98

by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Duties on wine

The wine sector is worried that the Commission is planning to introduce excise duties on wine.

This is of course a topic which keeps resurfacing in political discussions.

I should like to know if any new facts have arisen to justify reopening this subject, and what precisely the
Commission intends to do in this connection.

In particular, does the Commission propose to demonstrate once and for all that the zero-rating of excise duties
practised in all wine-producing countries leads to a distortion of competition with other drinks?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

Under Article 8 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise
duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1), the Commission reports to the Council and Parliament every two
years on the operation of the minimum rates of duty on alcoholic drinks. Such a report is now in preparation,
although no decisions have been taken as to its final content.

However, the Honourable Member will recognize that the report cannot avoid examining the question of whether
or not the minimum rate for wine should remain at zero. Moreover, since Article 8 specifically requires it to do so,
the report will also cover the question of competition between alcoholic drinks.

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(1999/C 96/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2182/98

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Recruitment of pilots for Olympic Airways

(3 July 1998)

The management of Olympic Airways recently decided to recruit 45 pilots to meet immediate requirements from
a list of successful candidates which had been drawn up after a competition in 1996. The need for such a decision
was confirmed by other relevant bodies of Olympic Airways (Flight Exploitation Directorate) after the decision
by the management to cut the company(cid:146)s turnover by 10 %, on the grounds that not even the new programme
could be implemented unless 45 pilots were recruited immediately. Despite all this the Ministry of Transport is
refusing to endorse the adoption of this decision by the management of Olympic Airways, without giving any
reason for its position.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2102/98 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. Measures to support beekeeping
Date: 1998-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSUMECI
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, apiculture, honey, marketing, production improvement

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/149

(1999/C 13/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/98

by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Measures to support beekeeping

Despite the increase in the number of beekeepers, beekeeping is still insufficiently regulated and is often left to
the generosity and courage of private operators who are forced to operate without incentives or technical
guidelines.

In some countries it is not considered to be an agricultural activity since it is not necessarily related to ownership
or possession of land, so that beekeepers are penalized from a fiscal, legal and economic point of view.

What Community initiatives have been or are to be taken to revive such an active sector of European agriculture
that is heavily penalized despite the increasing demand for honey?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 1998)

The Council recognised the importance of the beekeeping sector in July 1997, adopting, at the proposal of the
Commission, Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 Council Regulation (EC) 1221/97 of 25 June 1997 laying
down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey on general
application rules for the actions aiming at the improvement of production and of the marketing of honey (1).

The detailed rules on the national programmes aimed by the Council Regulation are fixed by the Commission at
Regulation (EC) 2300/97 (2), which has been amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 758/98 of 3 April
1998 (3). The national programmes were approved by the Commission in March 1998.

(1) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997.
(2) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997.
(3) OJ L 105, 4.4.1998.

(1999/C 13/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2122/98

by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Application of penalties: Regulation 1765/92

Regarding Regulation 1765/92 (1), is the Commission aware of the very heavy penalties applied when mistakes
have been made when claiming arable area payments, under the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control
System)?

In the United Kingdom we have found that many of these penalties have been applied even when it is clear that
these were genuine errors on the part of the producer. What flexibility can the Commission offer to assist these
affected producers?

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 1998)

Commission Regulation (EEC) 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (1) provides for sanctions in
cases where farmers over-declare the area of land for the purpose of obtaining a subsidy, or where certain other
rules have not been respected.