do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3632/98 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. NGO capacity-building in the developing countries
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: developing countries, forest conservation, local authority, non-governmental organisation, protection of animal life, wildlife

15.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 297/91

These calls were published at these dates in order to meet the deadlines for making the financial commitments
in 1998. While the Commission is aware that the dates of publication were not ideal, every effort was made to
publicise the calls by other means, for instance by passing the information to the Euro Info Centres for local
transmission.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(1999/C 297/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/98

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: NGO capacity-building in the developing countries

What action is the Commission taking to assist in capacity-building for non-governmental organizations and
local communities in the developing countries so that they may participate in monitoring and protecting
forests and wildlife?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1998)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a computer print-
out containing the information requested.

(1999/C 297/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3639/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

In its preparations for a food-aid package for Russia has the Commission considered the inclusion of quantities
of frozen pelagic species (fish) for which there is at present a very poor export market for the EU?

Answer given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 1999)

It is not the Commission’s intention to include fish in the food supply programme for Russia, as its government
has not requested this product.

(1999/C 297/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Community fraud and political malpractice

The 5 November issue of the Italian news weekly ‘Panorama’ reports on the case of the theft of refugee aid
provided by ECHO, the Community agency that manages humanitarian aid.

ECHO is responsible for overseeing the effectiveness of Community action, and in the space of a few months it
has had to deal with Bosnia, the African Great Lakes region and Kurdistan. This resulted in a large amount of
work and a threefold increase in the agency’s budget. It is now responsible for monitoring and overseeing more
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2611/98 of 3 December 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1078/98
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export refund

4. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 328/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2611/98

of 3 December 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to
tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1078/98

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 Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2513/98 (4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund and/or the
tax for the export of barley to all third countries was
opened pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1078/98 (5);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of
the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No

1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
than the
tenderer whose bid is equal
maximum refund, as well as to any tenderer whose bid
relates to an export tax;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
the Management
in accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 27 November to 3 December
1998, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regu-
lation (EC) No 1078/98, the maximum refund on ex-
portation of barley shall be ECU 57,98 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 December
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 December 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 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 313, 21. 11. 1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 154, 28. 5. 1998, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3610/98 by Gianfranco DELL'ALBA State aid for RAI under the Italian financial law
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: DELL'ALBA, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, application of EU law, broadcasting, complaint to the Commission, control of State aid, public sector, television

C 320/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

As regards the agenda for the next year, one meeting is planned for March/April 1999 and another
for October/November 1999 (depending on the availability of the committee members, meeting rooms
and interpreters). The Committee Bureau will meet 6 to 8 times during the year.

(1999/C 320/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/98

by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Fiorentina-Grasshopper football match on 3 November 1998

During the Fiorentina-Grasshopper football match for the second round of the UEFA Cup a device was thrown
on to the field. It exploded, injuring one of the players and leading to suspension of the game.

The game was being played in the Salerno stadium.

Inquiries by the competent authorities, corroborated by harsh statements by the Mayor of Salerno, suggest that
the Fiorentina football club behaved correctly but that some fringe groups of local fans, who are being
investigated, did not.

During the Fiorentina-Salerno match for the Serie A championship the two groups of fans clashed, and it is not
therefore unreasonable to think that the act was premeditated to harm Fiorentina.

The Mayor of Salerno has said that the maintenance of public order around the football stadium by the Salerno
authorities was inadequate.

From the data available to the competent authorities it cannot be deduced that Fiorentina was in any way
responsible for the incident.

UEFA is to take a decision on the subject on 12 November.

Does the Commission not consider it advisable to intervene urgently vis-à-vis UEFA in order to ensure that the
UEFA Cup is properly organised and to prevent any unfair penalisation of Fiorentina when responsibility can
in no way be attributed to it?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

The question raised by the Honourable Member relates to events which occurred at a Union of European
Football Associations (UEFA) Cup football match. It is not for the Commission to get involved in a disciplinary
matter which is the responsibility of a sporting organisation.

The Commission has often stated that sporting organisations must be free to lay down their own disciplinary
rules, which are what gives each sport its particular identity.

No Community intervention would be justified unless Community law was infringed, which does not seem to
be the point of the question here.

(1999/C 320/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3610/98

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: State aid for RAI under the Italian financial law

In the 1999 financial bill it submitted to parliament, the Italian Government included a subsidy of more than
200 billion for RAI as compensation for revenue the State broadcasting company did not receive from its
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2613/98 of 3 December 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2007/98
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, oats

4. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 328/23

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2613/98

of 3 December 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to
tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2007/98

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 Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2513/98 (4),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2007/
98 of 21 September 1998 on a special
intervention
measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden (5), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2599/98 (6), and in
particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund for the
export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export
from Finland or Sweden to all third countries was opened
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2007/98;

Whereas Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2007/98
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid

down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of
the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No
1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
tenderer whose bid is equal
than the
maximum refund;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

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

For tenders notified from 27 November to 3 December
1998, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regu-
lation (EC) No 2007/98, the maximum refund on ex-
portation of oats shall be ECU 54,95 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 December
1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 December 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 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 313, 21. 11. 1998, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 258, 22. 9. 1998, p. 13.
(6) OJ L 325, 3. 12. 1998, p. 10.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3606/98 by Herbert BÖSCH to the Commission. Further funding of the ECDP (European Cities on Drugs Policy)
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: BOESCH, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, EU policy, European organisation, action programme, drug addiction, project evaluation

C 207/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

(1999/C 207/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/98

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Co-financing of European NGO projects in South Africa

Following developments in the political situation in the Republic of South Africa, European Union aid for it
has for years been granted direct to public authorities, undertakings, popular organisations etc.

Following a period in which European NGOs had no Community support instrument with which to
implement projects in South Africa, the Commission announced some time ago that it was willing to again
give them the possibility of doing so under budget line B7-6000 (co-financing of NGO projects).

1. Can European NGOs in fact submit South African development projects under budget line B7-6000?

2. Were development projects in fact financed in 1996, 1997 and 1998?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 1999)

The Commission confirms that European non governmental organizations (NGOs) may present projects to be
implemented in South Africa for cofinancing under the NGO cofinancing budget line B7-6000.

No projects were financed under this budget line in 1996.

In 1997 there was a Community contribution of 499 153 euro to a project from an European NGO to support
self-help groups in rural areas of Kwazulu Natal Province. In 1998 three projects from European NGOs were
supported with a total Community contribution of 861 920 euro in the areas of housing policy and
construction, small enterprise development and literacy for the aged.

Eleven projects introduced by 10 European NGOs for a total of 4,5 million euro are under appraisal for
decision in 1999 in the areas of youth, peace building, vocational training, gender advocacy, rural self help and
support for small businesses.

(1999/C 207/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/98

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Further funding of the ECDP (European Cities on Drugs Policy)

The ECDP is an organisation currently consisting of 31 towns and regions which have united on the basis of
what is known as the 1990 Frankfurt Resolution with a view to pursuing a pragmatic drugs policy which
transcends party political boundaries.

In early July, this organisation was informed that the European Commission will not be supporting its activities
again until January 1999 at the very earliest.

1. Will the EU programme be continued after 1999?

2.

3.

If so, in what form will it be continued?

If not, why not?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2625/98 of 3 December 1998 concerning the stopping of fishing for haddock by vessels flying the flag of Spain
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, authorised catch, catch quota, fishing area, sea fish, ship's flag

5. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 329/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2625/98

of 3 December 1998

concerning the stopping of fishing for haddock by vessels flying the flag of Spain

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applic-
able to the common fisheries policy (1), as last amended
by Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 (2), and in particular
Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19
December 1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and
certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 783/98 (4), provides
for haddock quotas for 1998;

Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provi-
sions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of
stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commis-
sion to fix the date by which catches made by vessels
flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have
exhausted the quota allocated;

Whereas, according to the information communicated to
the Commission, catches of haddock in the waters of
ICES divisions V b (EC-zone), VI, XII, XIV by vessels
flying the flag of Spain or registered in Spain have
reached the quota allocated for 1998; whereas Spain has

prohibited fishing for this stock as from 22 November
1998; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that
date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of haddock in the waters of ICES divisions V b
(EC-zone), VI, XII, XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain
or registered in Spain are deemed to have exhausted the
quota allocated to Spain for 1998.

Fishing for haddock in the waters of ICES divisions V b
(EC-zone), VI, XII, XIV by vessels flying the flag of Spain
or registered in Spain is prohibited, as well as the reten-
tion on board, the transhipment and the landing of such
stock captured by the abovementioned vessels after the
date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter
into force on the day
following its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 22 November 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 December 1998.

For the Commission

Emma BONINO

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1997, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 12, 19. 1. 1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 113, 15. 4. 1998, p. 8.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2655/98 of 3 December 1998 concerning the stopping of fishing for haddock by vessels flying the flag of Spain
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, authorised catch, catch quota, fishing area, fishing regulations, sea fish

10. 12. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 335/55

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2655/98

of 3 December 1998

concerning the stopping of fishing for haddock by vessels flying the flag of Spain

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applic-
able to the common fisheries policy (1), as last amended
by Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 (2), and in particular
Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19
December 1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and
certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2386/98 (4) provides
for haddock quotas for 1998;

Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provi-
sions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of
stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commis-
sion to fix the date by which catches made by vessels
flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have
exhausted the quota allocated;

Whereas, according to the information communicated to
the Commission, catches of haddock in the waters of
ICES divisions VII, VIII, IX, X; CECAF 34.1.1 (EC zone)
by vessels flying the flag of Spain or registered in Spain
have reached the quota allocated for 1998; whereas Spain

has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 22 November
1998; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that
date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of haddock in the waters of ICES divisions VII,
VIII, IX, X; CECAF 34.1.1 (EC zone) by vessels flying the
flag of Spain or registered in Spain are deemed to have
exhausted the quota allocated to Spain for 1998.

Fishing for haddock in the waters of ICES divisions VII,
VIII, IX, X; CECAF 34.1.1 (EC zone) by vessels flying the
flag of Spain or registered in Spain is prohibited, as well
the transhipment and the
as the retention on board,
landing of such stock captured by the abovementioned
vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter
into force on the day
following its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 22 November 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 December 1998.

For the Commission

Emma BONINO

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1997, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 12, 19. 1. 1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 297, 6. 11. 1998, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3614/98 by Nelly MAES to the Commission. Confirmation of press reports of instances of nepotism in the ECHO affair
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MAES
Subjects: European official, budgetary control, corruption, economic offence, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid, recruitment

C 182/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

In 1997, 15 projects to inform European public opinion on development issues relating to fair trade were
financed under budget heading B7-6000. The amounts provided by the Commission (up to 50 % of the total
cost of each project) totalled some EUR 2,9 million. In 1998, 21 projects were approved or about to be
committed under that budget heading, totalling some EUR 3,7 million.

For some years, the Commission has been cofinancing labelling projects by NGOs or the organisations
operating ‘World Shops’ or which disseminate codes of conduct.

(1999/C 182/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3613/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Real scale of the ECHO affair

The European Commission says that only BEF 20 million was actually involved in the ECHO affair and not BEF
96 million, as some people claimed.

How can the Commission make this statement? If UCLAF establishes that the four contracts were bogus and
that payments were made on the basis of bogus documents, we can only assume that all the expenditure, i.e.
the entire BEF 96 million, was paid out in a totally irregular manner. Is that true? Is the Commission prepared
to demand repayment of the entire BEF 96 million?

Then can the Commission confirm that the ECHO affair does not extend beyond the four bogus contracts for
humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia and the Great Lakes region in Africa? Can it state with any degree of
certainty that bogus invoices and bogus contracts were not used on other occasions? Is the current ECHO affair
an exception to the rule, or were there other similar cases?

The Commission stated that, in previous years, the company involved was awarded contracts worth almost
one billion (Belgian) francs. Has an inquiry now been carried out in order to ascertain whether the other
contracts which the Commission concluded with the company involved were executed in a regular manner?

(1999/C 182/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3614/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Confirmation of press reports of instances of nepotism in the ECHO affair

Can the Commission confirm press reports that the official suspended because of his role in the ECHO affair
managed to secure jobs for his relatives and friends in ECHO’s external unit?

Is there any truth in the press reports that the suspended official found a job for his spouse as a translator in the
companies suspected of fraud in the ECHO affair?