ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/97 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: EU funds channelled to Rhineland-Pfalz since 1994

Via which projects and from which funds and in what amounts have Community funds been channelled to Rhineland-Pfalz:

1. To promote employment and combat long-term unemployment?

(a) from the European Regional Development Fund?

(b) from the European Social Fund?

(c) from the EAGGF and other EU resources?

2. To promote research and development?

(a) in the fields of universities and other institutes of higher education?

(b) in the field of private industry?

3. To promote relations and trade with countries of eastern and central Europe?

4. From the programmes in the energy and environmental fields?

5. From programmes in the youth field?

6. From the programmes in the educational field?

7. For women's projects?

8. For cultural projects?

9. How does the EU evaluate the success of such measures?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (18 July 1997)

Subject: Request by two Dutch citizens to the Netherlands Ministry of Justice to institute proceedings in respect of human rights violations

1. On 13 May 1997 the public prosecutor of Amsterdam, C.J.M. Goes, wrote to Rob Wijngaarde and Romeo Hoost, brother and nephew respectively of two of the fifteen victims, as follows: 'On 4 April 1997 the Ministry of Justice wrote to me, referring to the replies to questions in the chamber on 30 May 1996 (of which I assumed you are aware), to say that it must be assumed that Mr Bouterse lost Dutch nationality prior to 1982. It is now clear to me that the Ministry of Justice will not be taking any further action because it has no grounds for assuming that any further information would lead to a different conclusion'. Does the Dutch Presidency realise that this case involves a very serious violation of human rights, and that inquiries should be pursued as far as they can to establish what nationality Bouterse had at the time of the murders of the fifteen people carried out by him, or on his instructions?

2. The Minister's reply to the questions in the chamber on 30 May 1996 was simply that it must be assumed that Bouterse had Surinamese nationality at the time of the murders carried out by him, or on his instructions. Does the Dutch Minister now have a clearer picture of Bouterse's nationality at the time of his crimes against humanity and violations of human rights? Does the Presidency realise that if no further information can be obtained, and if it relies solely on supposition, this careless behaviour will seriously undermine public confidence in the rule of law and the constitutional state?

3. In reply to the questions in the chamber on 30 April 1996 the current President of the Council of Ministers of Justice stated that the consul-general of Surinam had been requested to shed light on Bouterse's nationality at the time of his human rights violations and crimes against humanity on 8 and 9 December 1982. Has the President of the Council of Ministers of Justice now received a reply from Surinam's consul-general and, if so, what, in the opinion of the consul-general, was Bouterse's nationality, and what evidence is there in support of this? If the consul-general of Surinam has still not replied, why has this obstructive behaviour been tolerated by the Dutch Presidency of the Council, and why have there not been any further enquiries?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2251/97, E-2319/97 and E-2320/97 (7 November 1997)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member fall out with the Council's sphere of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Improving the production and marketing of honey

Will the Commission include measures to combat all diseases afflicting bees, which should not be restricted solely to fighting varroa-mite disease, in the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (COM(96) 596 final - 96/0282 CNS) ((OJ C 378, 13.12.1996, p. 20. ))?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3019/97, E-3020/97, E-3021/97 and E-3022/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 October 1997)

The Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey ((OJ L 173, 1.7.1997. )) was adopted on 25 June.

One of the specific priorities of the Regulation is technical assistance to beekeepers. This includes training of young farmers interested in apiculture. The Regulation's aim is improvement of the production and marketing of honey, i.e. it is not a disease eradication programme. It provides for Community part-financing of national programmes and is intended to cover all beekeepers without distinction.

On imports and on quality standards for honey marketed within the Community, Council Directive 74/409/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to honey ((OJ L 221, 12.8.1974. )) applies. A proposal for amendment of it is at present before Parliament and the Council.

Under Council Directive 89/397/EEC on the official control of foodstuffs ((OJ L 186, 30.6.1989. )) honey from third countries is subject to the same control rules as that produced in the Community. It is up to the national authorities to take all necessary action to effect control in conformity with that Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: White Paper on railways

The Economic and Social Committee has issued an opinion on the White Paper: a strategy for revitalizing the Community's railways (COM(96) 421 final) ((OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 23. )). It is essential to sift through the directives and regulations and study their transposition into national laws. The actual implementation and achievements of these provisions used in the railways sector could thus be analysed so that Member States can learn from each other's experience and future fields of application can be examined.

Will the Commission examine in particular whether implementation in the individual Member States is converging or drawing further apart?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997)

The principal piece of Community legislation on the development of the railways is Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )), which has had a considerable impact on the reorganisation of the railways in recent years and is the foundation of the Commission's strategy to revitalise the Community's railways set out in its white paper of 1996. However, the Commission fully accepts the importance of studying in each Member State exactly how the Directive has been implemented and what results it has given. It has therefore launched a wide-ranging study on the implementation and results of the Directive and intends to present a report to the Council and the Parliament early next year. As for the implementation of the Directive in national law, the Commission has found that three Member States have not yet implemented the article on access rights and has opened proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against them.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2948/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Danger of overfishing off the coast of Africa

Is the Commission aware of reports in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant of 31 July 1997 (based on reports in The Guardian)accusing the European Union of contributing to overfishing of the waters off the coast of West Africa by means of fisheries agreements with countries in West Africa?

With which West African coastal countries has the Union already concluded fisheries agreements, and what is done to ensure that fishing is sustainable and does not damage the local/regional fisheries of the relevant countries themselves?

With which West African coastal countries are fisheries agreements being prepared, what are the ecological conditions for these agreements, and how will the Commission protect the local and regional fisheries of the countries concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

The article to which the Honourable Member refers had not come to the Commission's attention, but it is aware of a wave of comparable criticisms in the European press, to which it has replied with a series of rectifications.

The European fleet cannot be held exclusively responsible for the over-exploitation of African coastal waters, because numerous non-Community fleets also fish there. Moreover, European vessels operating under the fisheries agreements are subject to some of the most restrictive and binding conditions. Indeed, all the agreements are based on compliance with the relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea and the other international commitments entered into by the European Union for the rational and, above all, sustainable management of fisheries resources. This is why agreements provide not only for a battery of measures laying down the conditions under which European vessels can operate, but also for financial and other resources to enable the coastal state to ensure their implementation.

The West African countries with which the Community has concluded fishing agreements are: Morocco, Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Côte d'Ivoire, Sao Tome & Principe, Equatorial Guinea and Angola.

As regards future agreements, the Commission has entered into exploratory talks with Namibia and Gabon. The Commission will continue to promote responsible fishing which also takes account of the mutual interests of both parties and particularly of the national fleets of these coastal states.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/97 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Risk of collapse of Newstead Abbey, ancestral home of Lord Byron

On the outskirts of Nottingham lies the historic building of Newstead Abbey, the ancestral home and place of birth of Lord Byron, who was not only the greatest British poet but also a hero of the Greek national independence movement. Coal deposits had long since been discovered beneath the Abbey but no attempt was made throughout the Industrial Revolution to mine them, precisely for fear of the Abbey collapsing. Recently, that risk has become real since private interests are making moves to extract the coal, despite acknowledging that mining may cause the Abbey to collapse.

(a) Is the Commission aware of the threat to this important monument in the European cultural heritage, and

(b) what practical measures will it take to prevent the destruction of the building?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its written reply to Oral Question H-813/97 put by Mr Alavanos during question time at Parliament's November 1997 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (November 1997). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: The Thessaloniki 'metro'

The plan for the construction of a 'metro' in Thessaloniki is essentially confined to a single line running parallel to the city's waterfront which does not even form an efficient link between such nodal points as the airport and the city centre. At all events, a large part of the city, its suburbs and basic economic and other facilities will not be served by the 'metro' as planned.

Leaving aside the Commission's objections to the procedure for awarding the contract for the works, might it also review the problems involved in creating an environment-friendly and viable transport system in Thessaloniki as the city adapts to new circumstances? Might the Commission also use its influence to have the controversial 'metro' project replaced by a tram network covering the whole of the city, particularly as it is estimated that the overall cost of a complete network would basically be the same as for the metro-line of only 10 kilometres?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997)

The 1994-99 Community support framework for Greece provides for the European Regional Development Fund to part-finance the Thessaloniki metro project only provided it can attract private capital (and is economically viable).

The Commission is currently examining complaints from the participants in the international competition launched by the Greek authorities in 1993, on the basis of the Community legislation on the award of public contracts. Only once this examination has been completed will the Greek authorities be able to submit to the Commission a complete file for actual part-financing of the project.

The possibility of combining (or replacing) the metro line with a tram network and the general question of how public transport is organised in Thessaloniki are matters for the authorities of the Member State to deal with. The Commission's responsibility is to ensure that projects are carried out in compliance with Community policies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3253/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

Further to Dr Fischler's answer to Written Question P-0469/97 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 197. )) given on behalf of the Commission on 5 March 1997, could the Commission now say how many live cattle were exported from the EU to third countries in 1996, and how much was paid out in export refunds for live cattle exports to third countries in the period 16 October 1995 to 15 October 1996?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

Cattle exports from the Community to third countries amounted in 1996 to 497,491 live animals. In the period 16 October 1995 to 15 October 1996, 296.2 MECU was granted in export subsidies for live animals.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: OECD negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Agreement (MIA)

In its communication 'A level playing field for direct investment world-wide' (COM(95) 0042 - C4-0118/95) the Commission deals with the specific concerns of the developing countries in connection with Foreign Direct Investment: 'These countries have a special interest that FDI contributes to human resource development and that MNE accept a social responsibility when acting in the host country. They in particular want to avoid that FDI inflows are motivated by low environmental or social standards, or that these standards are even lowered further to attract FDI. The Community should therefore accept discussing complementary safeguards, such as codes of conducts for good corporate citizenship for MNEs, to meet these concerns as an accompanying element to the general principles assuring the free flow and the protection of investments'.

What steps has the Commission taken to guarantee respect for social, economic and ecological standards by the MNE? What stage has the discussion reached on the introduction of codes of conducts for MNE?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1997)

The Commission continues to believe that a lowering of environmental or social standards in order to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) should be avoided, and not only in developing countries. The Commission therefore is in favour of a corresponding provision, which is currently discussed in the multilateral investment agreement (MIA) negotiations.

The Commission also supports proposals to incorporate the Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) guidelines for multinational enterprises into the MIA.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that there is little evidence of FDI flows to third countries with a view to benefit from lower environmental or social standards, or that such standards have been lowered in order to attract foreign investment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/97 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Amount of Community funding allocated in 1996 to Austria and its individual federal states

Since the referendum on Austria's accession to the European Union in 1994, those critical of Austria's EU membership have greatly increased in number.

One of the chief subjects of criticism is the contribution Austria pays to the EU. Furthermore, it is often argued that Austria is not exploiting to the full the subsidies available within the EU.

This prompts the following questions:

1. What was the total amount of payments made by the EU from all available Community sources to Austria in 1996?

2. What payments were made by the EU in 1996 to the individual federal states of Austria?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the study on contributions to the Community budget which was transmitted to Parliament on 14 October 1997 ((SEC(97) 1918. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2894/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (17 September 1997)

Subject: Nickel release levels for the alloy used in the 1 and 2 euro coins

The nickel directive (94/27/EC) ((OJ L 188, 22.7.1994, p. 1. )) prohibits the use of a nickel alloy with a nickel release level of greater than 0.5 ug/cm2 per week for products intended to come in direct and prolonged contact with the human skin.

Given the fact that certain workers (e.g. bank tellers/cash desk operators) have a high level of contact with coins, does the Commission consider that coins are products which come into direct and prolonged contact with the human skin?

If so, will the Commission agree that the nickel alloy chosen for the euro coins should conform to the standards for such products laid down in the nickel directive?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1997)

Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations imposes limitations in the use of nickel in objects which are intended to come in direct and prolonged contact with the skin. These limitations have been imposed in recognition of the fact that the presence of nickel in certain objects may cause sensitisation of humans to nickel and may lead to allergic reactions in case of prolonged contact.

However as has been stated by the scientific committee for toxicity and ecotoxicity 'there is no evidence to suggest that nickel in current coinage has been associated with the initiation of sensitisation either in workers handling coins or in the ordinary consumer'.

Coins are not mentioned in the list of objects attached to the Directive and at present there is no evidence to suggest that coins are concerned by the Directive.

Under the proposal for a Council regulation on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins ((OJ C 208, 9.7.1997. )), only 8% of the coins in circulation would contain some nickel against 75% of the current coinage.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2654/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Premium rights for suckler cows

On 5 July 1997 the Commission published Regulation (EC) No 1302/97 ((OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 5. )) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 ((OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 20. )) laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes of the market in beef as regards certain detailed rules for the temporary leasing of suckler cow premium rights.

What further plans does the Commission have to regulate sucker cow premium rights?

From its research, would it agree that the benefits from suckler cows have accrued primarily to larger farmers? Last year, for example, Britain's Prince Charles was reported to have received £2 million in suckler premiums from the EU.

Would the Commission be prepared to revise the scheme so that it would be of greater benefit to smaller farmers? What steps would it be prepared to take so that the scheme can be revised so that farmers benefiting will have to follow practices which are ecologically sensible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1997)

Following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1302/97 as mentioned by the Honourable Member, which seeks to clarify certain rules on the temporary leasing of suckler cow premium rights, the Commission has no plans at present for the further regulation of this area.

The direct management of the system of premiums for bovine animals is the responsibility of the Member States. Accordingly, the Commission does not have details of the size of holdings receiving the aid. Nevertheless, since the suckler cow premium scheme is based on number of head of livestock, it may be assumed that the final amount the farmer receives is higher in the case of holdings with a large number of suckler cows. In point of fact, small farmers already qualify for exemption from the application of the stocking density factor for cattle on the holding.

As for the scheme's revision, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the section of Agenda 2000 ((COM (97) 2000 final. )) dealing with agriculture. Among the measures planned, the Commission indicates its intention to propose a ceiling on all direct income aid granted under the common organisation of the markets. In addition, the plan stresses that one of the objectives set for the common agricultural policy (CAP) is the integration of environmental goals.