You are on page 1of 2

9. 10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 310/75

Cost per Member State

First edition Second edition

Belgium 20.000 (1) 90.500 14.460

Denmark 7.500 10.700 2.634
Germany 30.000 90.250 16.230
Greece 15.000 31.400 6.468
Spain 50.000 34.550 13.146
France 100.000 35.800 22.296
Ireland 3.000 upon request 540
Italy 2.000 ( ) 68.000 8.520
Luxembourg 1.000 5.300 816
Netherland 50.000 9.000
Austria 10.000 14.900 3.588
Portugal 70.000 362.000 56.040
Finland 30.000 300 5.436
Sweden 10.000 200 1.824
United Kingdom 15.000 14.400 4.428
Info Point Brussels, relays 169.500

As previously indicated to the Honourable Member, brochures were also sent to the Commission delegations in
third countries and to the subscribers of mailing lists. The stastistics shown in the above table include a number
of special mailings as well as brochures distributed directly to citizens by the Commission at their request. There
is no breakdown as to the exact number of these brochures between Member States.

Concerning the organisation of public seminars and conferences on the Amsterdam Treaty, the Commission is
not directly organising anything in any of the Member States. The Commission published a call for proposals
(AP/97 − 01/TF) requesting information projects to be cofinanced by the Commission under the priority
information action ‘Building Europe together’, one of the three initiatives of Prince, the information programme
for the citizens of Europe, jointly decided by the Parliament and the Commission. A breakdown per Member
State of the projects co-financed through the call for proposals is being forwarded directly to the Honourable
Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Three Irish projects were selected (the Irish Council of
Trade Unions, the National Women’s Council of Ireland and the European Movement). In the meantime the
ICTU has requested the Commission to cancel the forecast activity.

While the Commission is not organising conferences or seminars in Ireland, in co-operation with the
Parliament’s office it is organising a series of debates on themes relevant to the Treaty, with balanced
participation between speakers on both sides of the debate. Six debates in all are planned and two have already
taken place. The amount being spent (covering advertising and refreshments but not administrative costs) will be
approximately £25 600. This expenditure is part of the Prince programme, which was approved by the

(1) Includes brochures for Community institutions.

(2) Includes some brochures for the euro exhibition in Rome.

(98/C 310/99) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0495/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Failure to issue driving licences to persons suffering from Diabetes Mellitus in the UK

Following an enquiry from my constituent, Mr Paul Moore of Wickford, does the Commission believe that the
failure to issue a driving licence to a person with Diabetes Mellitus under Directive 91/439/EEC (1), enacted in
the UK from 1 January 1998, could constitute discrimination under the new Article 6A in the draft Treaty of
Amsterdam? Will the Commission investigate this issue?

(1) OJ L 52, 27.2.1991, p. 5.

C 310/76 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 10. 98

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 1998)

The Commission does not believe that the provisions relating to diabetes mellitus, stipulated in point 10 of
Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) constitute a discrimination
under the new Article 6A of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam.

For more detailed information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written
question E-113/98 by Mrs Waddington (2) and oral question 60/98 by Mrs McIntosh during question time at
Parliament’s February 1998 part-session (3). The Commission is also sending to the Honourable Member and to
the Secretariat general of Parliament a copy of the letter which it has sent to general enquirers on his specific

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2) See page 23.
(3) Debate of the Parliament (February 1998).

(98/C 310/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/98

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission
(2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the EU’s development programmes

In the European Union’s decision-making on development aid projects, greater account should be taken of the
priorities and needs of the recipient country. In the EDF process the Commission and the Member States are
represented, whereas the target countries for the project are not even given the opportunity to comment in all
cases. However, in the new operational guidelines for EDF projects, the government of the target country is made
responsible for project leadership. This is a perfectly reasonable principle, but is impossible to put into practice
unless the recipient country’s own needs and priorities guide the selection of development projects.

In order to ensure that the target countries’ own priorities are taken into account, would it be possible to delegate
responsibility for approval of projects in the context of the EDF process to a body made up of EU Member States’
representatives and Commission representatives operating in the target country?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 1998)

The provisions of the fourth Lomé Convention (the principles and guidelines set out in Article 221 and Article
222, and the implementing procedures set out in Articles 285-289) make clear the pivotal role of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States receiving Community aid in the decision-making process for the European
Development Fund.

Those provisions permit the recipient countries’ priorities and needs to be fully taken into account in projects and
programmes financed.

Project identification and preparation, then, are the responsibility of the ACP State (Article 285).

Appraisal is conducted jointly by the ACP State and the Community, represented on the spot by the Head of the
Commission Delegation (Article 287).

The financing proposal is drawn up by the Head of Delegation in close collaboration with the ACP State, and
finalised by the Commission. The ACP State receives a copy and may request changes to it (Article 288).

Where the financing proposal is not adopted by the Community, the ACP State may request that it be referred
either to the ACP-EC Development Finance Cooperation Committee or to the Community’s decision-making
body (Article 289).