do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2645/98 by Kenneth COLLINS to the Commission. Doñana
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: COLLINS KENNETH, European Parliament
Subjects: Spain, chemical pollution, national park, nature reserve, water pollution, wildlife

C 118/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

The Commission objects to the measures under Law No 2538/97 because they meet the criteria laid down
in Article 92(1) of the Treaty without qualifying for any of the exemptions provided for Article 92(2) and
(3). In particular, the Commission considers that the aid envisaged by the Greek government to settle the
debts of cooperatives does not appear to meet the conditions in the Community guidelines on State aid for
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1).

(1) OJ C 283, 19.9.1997.

(1999/C 118/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/98

by Kenneth Collins (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Doæana

What information does the Commission have on the extent of damage to the proposed Natura 2000 site in
the Doæana region of Spain, following the toxic chemical spill at Aznalc(cid:243)llar? Can the Commission give
any information on compensation payable for the loss of wildlife in the national park and when were
landowners in the area, such as WWF, notified of such information?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

According to the information supplied by Spain, the chemical spill at Aznalcollar contaminated 2 256 ha
of the nature park and 98 ha of the national park. The polluted water flowed for two to three days along the
(cid:145)Brazo de la Torre(cid:146), which makes up the eastern border of the national park, until it was definitively
stopped by the construction of a dam upstream. This dam, located within the nature park, held back several
million cubic metres of acidified water containing heavy metals.

Work to decontaminate the water held back by the dam is reported to be nearing completion, allowing the
water to be released into the Guadalquivir river. Work to clean up the mud laden with pollutants should
begin immediately and be completed before the next rainy season.

The Commission has received no information on any compensation which might be payable by the
Spanish authorities for the damage caused to wildlife in the national park. However, damage within the
national park seems to have been limited, since steps were swiftly taken to contain the polluted waters at
the northern limits of the park.

(1999/C 118/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/98

by Edward Newman (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Illegal immigration › asylum-seekers

According to information published by the Migration News Sheet (July 1998) the European Union has
offered to provide Turkey with, inter alia, financial assistance for the setting up of detention centres to
hold (cid:145)illegal immigrants(cid:146).

1. Will the Commission confirm or deny that any such offer has been made to Turkey, regardless of
whether Ankara has accepted or rejected the offer?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2574/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Flood relief in China
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: China, EU aid, emergency aid, flood

C 118/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

Of course, if evidence were to come to light that anti-personnel landmines were being used, particularly
where the civil population might be put at risk, this would provoke the strongest condemnation from the
Commission.

(1999/C 118/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Flood relief in China

Can the Commission state whether any EU aid was offered to the People(cid:146)s Republic of China following
the recent disaster caused by flooding?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

By an emergency decision adopted on 6 August 1998, the Commission allocated an amount of
ECU 605 000 to two relief projects which are implemented by the International Federation of the Red
Cross and MØdecins sans frontiŁres (MSF) Holland. These projects, which target some of the worst
affected areas in Central and Southern China, are supposed to respond to the most urgent needs of the
flood victims in the fields of food, water and temporary shelter.

A second emergency decision for an amount of ECU 1 050 000 was adopted on 4 September 1998. This
project, with objectives like the two above-mentioned operations, is also implemented by the International
Federation of the Red Cross.

Given the size of the present flood disaster, the Commission is continuing to monitor the evolution of the
situation closely with a view to possible allocation of additional assistance.

(1999/C 118/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2578/98

by Angela Sierra GonzÆlez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Economic and taxation regime › the Canary Islands and tax havens

The (cid:145)special taxation group(cid:146) of the Commission, which is answerable to the Commissioner responsible for
taxation matters, Mr Mario Monti, has drawn up a list of 75 (cid:145)potentially harmful(cid:146) situations in the EU,
among which it has included the economic and taxation regime prevailing in the Canary Islands.

However, the taxation aspects of this regime received the Commission(cid:146)s approval in December 1997, with
a number of modifications to the text proposed.

Article 299 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, currently in process of ratification, recognises the right of the
outlying regions, including the Canary Islands, to establish specific measures in the area of taxation.

What aspects of the Canary Islands(cid:146) regime did the group consider to constitute (cid:145)potentially harmful(cid:146)
measures for competition in the EU?

What justification is there for including the Canary Islands(cid:146) regime on this (cid:145)grey list(cid:146), given the special
circumstances of the Union(cid:146)s outlying regions?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2666/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. Relations between the Council and Parliament
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, Treaty on European Union, consultation of information, information

C 118/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.4.1999

(1999/C 118/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Relations between the Council and Parliament

Both preceding Council presidencies have anticipated the Amsterdam Treaty by extending Parliament(cid:146)s
rights of consultation under the third pillar.

1.

How will the new presidency implement this practice?

2. What is the presidency(cid:146)s position on the call for Council representatives to be present during
discussions in Parliament(cid:146)s committees and to be authorized to speak on behalf of the Council?

It would enhance the coherence and continuity of Parliament(cid:146)s work if each presidency were to

3.
submit a written final report on its work. What view does the Council take of this proposal?

Reply

(27 November 1998)

The Council intends to continue the practice it has followed to date in applying the first and second
paragraphs of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as regards informing and consulting the
European Parliament and taking its views into consideration. In this connection the Austrian Presidency,
like its two predecessors, will continue to consult the European Parliament on legally binding acts in the
areas covered by Title VI of the TEU.

Regarding the presence of Council representatives at parliamentary committee meetings, it may be noted
that the Council Presidency regularly attends parliamentary committees to discuss the issues referred to in
Title VI of the TEU.

The Council wishes to point out that, as in previous years, it will present a review of its action under Title
VI of the TEU to the European Parliament at the end of 1998, at the annual debate held pursuant to Article
K.6. In addition, a report on the progress of the European Union, especially in the justice and home affairs
field, is submitted to the European Parliament every year.

(1999/C 118/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: High-tech crime

The programme of the current presidency makes reference to preparatory work on a resolution on high-
tech crime.

1. What exactly is planned for this topic?

2. What exactly is meant by this term?

3.

How does the Council assess the legal status of such a (cid:145)resolution(cid:146)?

4. What is this resolution supposed to achieve in the opinion of the Council?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2671/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Cooperation programmes for officials
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: EU institution, European official, civil service, international organisation, labour mobility













EUR-Lex - 91998E2671 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2671

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2671/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Cooperation programmes for officials  


Official Journal C 118 , 29/04/1999 P. 0117 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/98by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: Cooperation programmes for officialsAt present there are 11 different programmes for promoting various activities involving officials (training, exchange of officials, exchange of information, improved cooperation). This proliferation of cooperation programmes is not in conformity with the repeated demand for transparency, effectiveness and proximity to the general public. This fragmentation has also been criticized accordingly in many quarters.1. What aims do the individual programmes pursue and what purpose do they fulfill? How exactly do they differ from one another?2. Is a review of these programmes planned during the presidency?3. If so, what form is it due to take?4. If not, what are the reasons for not carrying out such a review?5. Since these programmes have in part already been opened to the applicant countries as well, could the Commission give a detailed breakdown showing in which of these programmes participants from the CEECs are already involved?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission(12 October 1998)A system of exchanges was set up some twenty years ago to enable Commission officials to be seconded to the administrations of the Member States, non-member countries and international organisations.The exchanges are mainly intended to develop cooperation with the civil services of the Community, non-member countries and international organisations for the implementation of Community policies in certain areas (in particular, the environment, transport and the Structural Funds) or the coordination of Community measures at international level.The new exchange scheme adopted by the Commission in 1995 and amended recently (24 July 1998) makes a number of changes: the maximum period of secondment is reduced from three to two years; the period of eligibility for daily mission expenses is limited to nine months; Annex X to the Staff Regulations is applied to secondments of over nine months outside the Community; secondments in the capital cities are terminated at the request of the Member State holding the Presidency (currently, officials are seconded to the relevant Permanent Representation in Brussels); and where a secondment is requested for an initial period of less than nine months, it cannot be extended. The system of exchanges can be applied in the countries of central and eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2531/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. EU funding for projects designed to benefit orphans in third countries
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: EU aid, European Development Fund, child protection, developing countries, human rights, non-governmental organisation, orphan, prostitution, sexual offence, third country













EUR-Lex - 91998E2531 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2531

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2531/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. EU funding for projects designed to benefit orphans in third countries  


Official Journal C 142 , 21/05/1999 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/98by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission(1 September 1998)Subject: EU funding for projects designed to benefit orphans in third countries1. How much funding is available annually from the EU to projects designed to benefit orphans and orphanages in third countries?2. Through which funding mechanisms is this money channelled?3. Which third countries are involved and how much does each receive?4. Which UK-based charities and organisations are involved?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission(13 November 1998)Projects financed by the Commission in developing countries may occasionally cover the specific needs of orphans, but more often they target children or young people as a whole. Such projects may be financed either from the European Development Fund (EDF) and its counterpart funds, or under specific budget headings, for example chapter B7-70 (the European initiative for democracy and the protection of human rights) and heading B7-6000 (co-financing with non-governmental organisations).Several projects targeting children were supported in 1997 under budget heading B7-7020 (human rights and democracy in the developing countries), amounting to a total of ECU 368 060. These were: rescue and rehabilitation of girls sold into prostitution in Nepal (ECU 86 800); support for girl labourers, single mothers and children in Togo (ECU 150 000), and a programme to prevent child sexual abuse and help abused children in Sri Lanka (ECU 131 260). The latter project was run by the British NGO International Catholic Child Bureau.Details of all projects financed under budget heading B7-6000 are given in the Commission's annual report on cooperation with NGOs.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2567/98 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Respite and shared care for disabled adults
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, TRUSCOTT
Subjects: adult, care of people with disabilities, disabled person, social facilities, special education, standard

C 96/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

(1999/C 96/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/98

by JosØ ApolinÆrio (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: The NUTS and Agenda 2000

Can the Commission confirm the geographical distribution of the areas eligible under NUTS 2 for the UK,
following the submission of Agenda 2000?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 1998)

The Commission presented its proposals for Agenda 2000 (1) in July 1997. Its proposals for new regulations
relating to the structural funds and the Cohesion fund for the period 2000-2006 were published in March 1998.

In mid-1995, the Statistical office of the Community (Eurostat) was informed by the Office for national statistics
(ONS) of the United Kingdom that following a comprehensive reform in regional and local administration,
significant changes would be proposed to the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) system.

The first draft proposal for reform of the NUTS in the United Kingdom was forwarded to the Commission for
comment in mid-1996, followed by a formal proposal in June 1997. After examination of the technical merits of
the proposals in the light of the underlying principles of the NUTS system, a new NUTS classification for the
United Kingdom was agreed in June 1998. It involved very minor changes at the NUTS 1 level, a significant
revision of the NUTS 3 regions with related changes at the NUTS 4 level, as well as more limited changes at the
NUTS 2 level.

(1) COM(97) 2000 final.

(1999/C 96/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/98

by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Respite and shared care for disabled adults

Could the Council please clarify the following points about respite and shared care for disabled adults in the EU.
What EU regulations relate to the standards for respite and shared care for disabled adults across Europe? What
regulations exist for standards in day care facilities for disabled adults? And finally, how does the standard of
provision compare between Member States?

Reply

(22 October 1998)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is no legislation at Community level in the
fields to which his question refers. The Commission has not submitted any proposals on that subject to the
Council.

(1999/C 96/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/98

by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Environment statistics database

I am informed that the European Commission now has a new environment statistics database which is currently
only available for use by the Commission and cannot be accessed by the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2692/98 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO Emergency aid for the Sudan
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MENDEZ DE VIGO
Subjects: EU aid, Sudan, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, hunger, war

6.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 320/9

(1999/C 320/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Fishing agreement with the Comores 1994-1997

Can the Commission provide details of the amount of fish caught, the species caught, the market value of the
fish and where the fish was landed under the 1994-1997 EU fishing agreement with the Comores?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2572/98 and E-2573/98
given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The fishing protocol signed with the Comoros Islands covered the three-year period from 20 July 1994 to
19 July 1997. For a permitted total of 37 vessels, the Comorian authorities issued 35 annual licences to
Community tuna seiners in the first year, 33 in the second year and 37 in the third year, i.e. an average licence
uptake rate of 95 %.

The average tonnage of the vessels operating in the area is 1 320 GRT, the smallest being 760 GRT and the
largest 2 640 GRT.

The total annual catches were:

2 1994: 3 606 tonnes of tuna, worth approximately ECU 2,5 million,

2 1995: 1 728 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 1 million,

2 1996: 3 143 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 2 million,

2 1997 (until 17.7.1998): 1 830 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 1,5 million.

The main species of tuna landed was bonito (approx. 70 %), followed by yellowfin tuna (approx. 20 %).

Since tuna is a highly migratory species, vessels holding a fishing licence under the agreement with the
Comoros Islands generally also hold licences under the other agreements in the region, namely with the
Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius. This makes it difficult to calculate the number of days spent in the
Comorian exclusive economic zone.

Catches are generally landed in the ports of Victoria (Seychelles), Port-Louis (Mauritius) and Antsiranana
(Madagascar).

(1999/C 320/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Emergency aid for the Sudan

The largest country in Africa currently finds itself in the grip of a severe crisis which has placed 1,2 to
2,6 million lives at risk. The number of children already caught up in the famine sweeping the Sudan stands at
600 000. Furthermore, a 15-year civil war has compounded the plight of the country, leaving its people all but
bereft of the means with which to survive unaided and plunging them into poverty.

How does the Commission intend to respond to this situation? Has it put together a humanitarian aid
programme to provide famine relief? If not, does it intend to do so in the near future, and in what form?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2573/98 by John McCARTIN Fishing agreement with the Comores 1994-1997
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: Comoros, agreement (EU), catch of fish, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing licence

6.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 320/9

(1999/C 320/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Fishing agreement with the Comores 1994-1997

Can the Commission provide details of the amount of fish caught, the species caught, the market value of the
fish and where the fish was landed under the 1994-1997 EU fishing agreement with the Comores?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2572/98 and E-2573/98
given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1998)

The fishing protocol signed with the Comoros Islands covered the three-year period from 20 July 1994 to
19 July 1997. For a permitted total of 37 vessels, the Comorian authorities issued 35 annual licences to
Community tuna seiners in the first year, 33 in the second year and 37 in the third year, i.e. an average licence
uptake rate of 95 %.

The average tonnage of the vessels operating in the area is 1 320 GRT, the smallest being 760 GRT and the
largest 2 640 GRT.

The total annual catches were:

2 1994: 3 606 tonnes of tuna, worth approximately ECU 2,5 million,

2 1995: 1 728 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 1 million,

2 1996: 3 143 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 2 million,

2 1997 (until 17.7.1998): 1 830 tonnes of tuna worth approximately ECU 1,5 million.

The main species of tuna landed was bonito (approx. 70 %), followed by yellowfin tuna (approx. 20 %).

Since tuna is a highly migratory species, vessels holding a fishing licence under the agreement with the
Comoros Islands generally also hold licences under the other agreements in the region, namely with the
Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius. This makes it difficult to calculate the number of days spent in the
Comorian exclusive economic zone.

Catches are generally landed in the ports of Victoria (Seychelles), Port-Louis (Mauritius) and Antsiranana
(Madagascar).

(1999/C 320/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2692/98

by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Emergency aid for the Sudan

The largest country in Africa currently finds itself in the grip of a severe crisis which has placed 1,2 to
2,6 million lives at risk. The number of children already caught up in the famine sweeping the Sudan stands at
600 000. Furthermore, a 15-year civil war has compounded the plight of the country, leaving its people all but
bereft of the means with which to survive unaided and plunging them into poverty.

How does the Commission intend to respond to this situation? Has it put together a humanitarian aid
programme to provide famine relief? If not, does it intend to do so in the near future, and in what form?