ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2142/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (3 August 1996)

Subject: Support for Italian fruit and vegetable growers

Does the Commission intend to speed up the introduction of the new rules on Community aid in the fruit and vegetables sector, which are liable to be further delayed, as there is an urgent need for a policy of providing special forms of aid to support the hard-pressed Italian fruit and vegetable sector which, particularly in southern Italy, is in serious crisis,with productivity falling by between 20 and 60% for a wide range of fruit?

In particular,guarantee funds are required for small producers in southern Italy because, as the rules stand at present, almost all of the over Lire 600 billion the European Union spends each year in the sector are paid to larger undertakings, resulting in big profits for the sole benefit of organizations on the distribution side.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

The Commission has put forward proposals for three regulations, one establishing a common organization of the market in the fruit and vegetable sector, another for a common organization of the market in the processed fruit and vegetable sector and a third establishing a system of aid to certain citrus producers. ((COM(95) 434 and COM(96) 177. )) In the light of the growing concentration of demand it feels a corresponding concentration of supply via producer organizations, by involving growers more closely on the commercial side, would strengthen the growers' position on the market.

The figures for the execution of the 1995 budget show that under Chapter 15 (fruit and vegetables) the guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund transferred ITL 917 000 million to Italy's disbursing agencies. Of this, ITL 103 000 million went to export firms in the form of export refunds, ITL 78 000 million was paid out as retirement benefit and ITL 736 000 million, in the form of aid for the processing of fruit and vegetables (ITL 291 000 million for the processing of citrus fruit), benefited growers indirectly.

Under the existing rules, aid for processing is paid to processing firms which have paid growers a minimum price (set above the market price) for the raw materials. but in the citrus fruit sector, with the recently-approved reform, the payments will henceforth go direct to growers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2184/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Bird protection - cruelty to animals - the 'chaffinch manoeuvre' in the Harz mountains

In the Harz mountains a curious competition, the 'chaffinch manoeuvre', each year provokes clashes between 'traditionalists' and animal protection groups. In this competition the singing of chaffinches is judged and prizes awarded. Preparatory to the event the birds are kept by their owners for long periods in small, darkened cages. As soon as the birds see sunlight again on the day of the competition, they burst into song. Exactly how long the birds are kept caged in the dark varies from region to region. In the Eastern part of the Harz mountains the birds are kept for several months in complete darkness in cages 25 x 16 x 25 cms in order to stimulate their singing.

1. Does the Commission believe these competitions are compatible with the bird-protection directives currently in force in the European Union?

2. If not, will the Commission initiate infringement proceedings against Germany for tolerating such competitions and the attendant cruelty to birds on their soil?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The Commission does not consider the facts as put forward by the Honourable Member to be in contradiction with Community law. It is true that Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) on the conservation of wild birds prohibits keeping birds of species the hunting and capture of which is prohibited, included finches. However, this prohibition concerns wild birds and not those bred in captivity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2040/96 by Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Information on homosexuals in the Commission

EGALITE, an organization fighting for the rights of homosexual EU staff, has received a number of inquiries from individuals and organizations seeking information on the Commission's policy towards homosexuals.

The inquiries are from people who first approached the Commission but received no satisfaction. Surely the public are not expected to obtain information about official Commission policy from an organization outside the Commission?

EGALITE has even received an inquiry from a person in DG X who had tried in vain to obtain information on the Commission's policy from DG V and DG DG IX.

Which DG deals with official Commission policy towards homosexuals?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, at Community level, there is no policy on homosexuals.

As part of its powers under the various Community policies, the Commission implements measures to eliminate all discrimination between individuals on grounds of race, belief, sex or sexual orientation.

DG IX is the Directorate-General responsible for Commission staff matters. On 9 July 1996, as part of staff policy, the Commission adopted new measures for officials and other servants as regards cohabitation.

Under these new measures, which are applicable to heterosexual and homosexual cohabitation alike, partners of officials or other servants can enjoy certain administrative facilities on an equal footing with spouses, wherever the Staff Regulations do not require to be amended.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/96 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: 'Sport and culture without tobacco'

As part of world anti-smoking day the World Health Organization together with the International Olympic Committee started a campaign for 'sport and culture without tobacco'.

Are the Commissioners with responsibility for sport and health willing to grant EU aid for sporting and cultural events only when these events are not sponsored (either openly or covertly) by the tobacco industry? If this step is not taken there is a risk that the damaging connection of sport-culture-tobacco-Europe will be established in the minds of the younger generation in particular.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission fully endorses the efforts of the World health organisation and the International olympic committee, through World no-smoking day, to disassociate tobacco advertising and sponsorship from sporting and cultural events. In particular, in the Commission's support to such events, it is a condition of financing and patronage that no advertising or sponsorship of tobacco companies or products take place.

The prohibition of such direct and indirect advertising, is covered in the Commission's amended proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions on advertising for tobacco products ((OJ C 129, 21.5.1992. )).

Council Directive 89/552/EEC ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )) prohibits advertising on television for cigarettes and other tobacco products and sponsorship of television programmes by manufacturers or sellers of such products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1338/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (4 June 1996)

Subject: Structural Funds and employment

When they held their informal meeting in Venice, the Ministers responsible for regional policy and regional planning agreed that the Commission and the Member States would cooperate even more closely in implementing assistance under the Structural Funds. After the conclusions were announced, Mrs Wulf-Mathies, a Member of the Commission, said that it would be important to ensure that job creation measures were eligible to benefit under the Funds.

By what means will such eligibility be 'ensured'? How will the measures in question tie in with Objective 1?

Reply (29 October 1996)

1. No decision on the Community was taken at the informal meeting in Venice of the Ministers responsibile for regional and regional policy and regional planning; such informal meetings are by their very nature not fora in which Community decisions are taken.

2. However, the Commission did inform the Council, in its communication of 20 March 1996 on structural assistance and employment, of the importance of ensuring that job-creation measures were eligible to benefit under the Funds, in full compliance with the existing legal framework. That communication was also sent to the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

It is for the Commission and the appropriate authorities in each Member State to manage the implementation of the structural funds in accordance with the regulations and with the aim of meeting the objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2235/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Poseima-agriculture programme - support for wine production in Madeira

Wine production is of crucial importance in the autonomous region of Madeira.

Can the Commission say whether the current support framework for wine production in Madeira is being implemented strictly as part of Poseima or whether this support is being granted through other Community policies? If the latter is the case, can the Commission say what specific measures and amounts have been provided under the support framework for wine production in Madeira?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 ((OJ L 173, 27.6.1992. )) provides for Community assistance for the production of Madeira liqueur wines via aid towards the purchase of rectified concentrated must (ECU 12.08 per hectolitre for a

maximum amount of 3 600 hectolitres per growing season) and wine alcohol and aid for the ageing process of these wines (currently ECU 0.02379 per hectolitre per day for a maximum of 20 000 hectolitres per annum); it also provides for a lump sum to support the cultivation of vines aimed at producing quality wines in traditional growing areas. The lump sum is currently ECU 476.76 ECU per hectare.

The intervention measures under Title III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine and the Community grubbing arrangements do not apply to Madeira.

Under the multifund operational programme for the autonomous region of Madeira approved by the Commission on 4 March 1994, ECU 1.8 million was set aside in assistance towards improving winegrowing structures.

This programme is part of the Community support framework for structural intervention schemes in Portugal for the period 1994-99.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2263/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Qualifications for computer operatives

Is there a recognized EU-wide standardized qualification for computer operatives?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

Most occupations are not regulated at Community level; a few (mainly in the health-care sector) are subject to minimum standards laid down in 'sectoral' directives. Each Member State is responsible for regulating all aspects of taking up and pursuing a given occupation.

However, since the discrepancies between Member States' regulations risked impeding the free movement of persons, a general system for the recognition of qualifications was introduced. Subject to certain conditions, the system applies to all occupations that are not covered by a specific directive (and hence to the occupation of computer operative).

The system was set up by Directive 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. )) on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration and by Directive 92/51/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )) on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC. Whether the one or the other applies in a specific case depends on the level of qualification required in order to take up the occupation concerned. The first Directive covers university-level education and training, while the second covers qualifications obtained on completion of a secondary or technical course or of a post-secondary course lasting at least one (and possibly two) years following the award of an advanced level school-leaving certificate.

The system applies whenever an occupation is regulated in a Member State, i.e. whenever taking up a given occupation is subject to legislative or administrative rules requiring possession of a qualification. The basis for recognition is that the occupation which a migrant wishes to pursue in the host Member State must be identical to that for which he/she has been trained in his/her home Member State. The system neither requires Member States to regulate the pursuit of occupations that might be covered by the Directives, nor does it coordinate education and training. The two Directives merely lay down the necessary and sufficient requirements that an applicant must satisfy in order to obtain recognition. Member States remain free to determine the minimum qualifications required in order to take up and pursue a given occupation.

The general system also provides for a migrant whose education and training differs substantially from that required in the host Member State to choose whether to take an aptitude test or to complete an adaptation period. For the system to apply, the migrant has to be fully qualified in his/her home Member State to pursue the occupation in question, i.e. he/she is required to have completed all the necessary formalities and periods of work experience after obtaining the qualification itself.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1841/96 by Raphaël CHANTERIE to the Commission. Budget line B3-4104



Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0050



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1841/96 by Raphaël Chanterie (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996) Subject: Budget line B3-4104 What projects were funded under budget line B3-4104, 'Measures for elderly persons' in 1995? Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996) Based on provisions by the budgetary authority, the Commission did continue to promote last year actions at a European level which benefitted the older generation and promoted solidarity between the generations. The main aim was to promote the transfer across the Community of best practice in the field of older people. A list of activities supported from this budget line is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2243/96 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) and Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Primates transported by Sabena and Air France for research purposes

Primates captured in the wild are still being transported under wretched conditions to laboratories in Europe by Sabena and Air France. 80% of the animals die before they reach their final destination.

1. What action is the Commission planning to take to prohibit the transporting of these primates to Europe in order to tackle the root problem, i.e. the capturing of wild primates for research purposes?

2. What proposals will the Commission make to improve the transport of animals in general?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2174/96 and E-2243/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The importation of primates and their transport into the Community by airlines is a legal activity. There are current needs for primates, judged by the appropriate authorities to be essential, which cannot be met by the supply and use of animals already available in the Community.

If the transport of these animals by air were banned, while their importation into the Community were still permitted, the result would be greatly increased suffering, as animals would be flown to third countries then imported into the Community by land or sea. This would result in much longer journeys for them and more suffering. Indeed, this is already happening, as many airlines have yielded to pressure and have stopped transporting primates.

It is not possible to deal in a piecemeal way with the undoubted difficulties inherent in the use of primates as laboratory animals. The Commission is therefore developing a comprehensive strategy which would:

a. require a much stronger justification for the use of primates in laboratories, as a way of reducing the numbers required,

b. improve communication with regard to the availability of animals already in Member States, as a way of reducing the need to import them from outside,

c. encourage, where possible, the provision of purpose-bred animals within the Community, to meet genuine needs.

This strategy should be combined with a determination by all concerned to seek a progressive reduction in the need for primates to be used as laboratory animals, the ultimate goal being the elimination of any such need.

These matters will be considered at a conference to be organised by the Commission in early 1997, at which the Community policy of 50% reduction in the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes by the year 2000 will be discussed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/96 by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Request for information on prosecution of those responsible for contaminating beef and veal with meat and bone meal containing a substance causing BSE

Can the Commission state what has happened to the plant manufacturing meal from animal proteins which is situated at Doncaster, Yorkshire and owned by the De Mulder brothers? This plant, using the C. G. Anderson machine without a steam sterilizer and not using an organic solvent bath, was behind the appearance of meal contaminated with the pathogenic agent of the staggering disease.

Is this plant still in operation? If so, have the owners, Messrs De Mulder, been required to install a sterilizer in their plant?

Does the Commission propose to take legal action for liability against the company facing these charges?

Does it intend to take legal action or encourage proceedings against the French importers of banned meal, after making the necessary efforts to identify the importing companies based in Brittany, France, by examining customs documents available from permanent archives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

It is not possible to determine at this time whether any particular establishment produced, at some point in the past, meat-and-bone meal containing the scrapie agent. In any case, a series of national and Community measures have been adopted in recent years laying down the processes which must be used for the treatment of waste material derived from animals. If the Honourable Member has evidence that any establishment is operating in breach of these requirements, he should in the first instance pass the evidence to the authorities of the Member State concerned.

The Commission is not aware of illegal imports of meat-and-bone meal into France but, if the Honourable Member has evidence of such imports he should inform the French authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Commission position on Article 100a(4)

During the last EU enlargement the more stringent environmental standards of the new countries in certain sectors were accepted until their revision in 1998.

Can the Commission indicate whether insistence on these higher standards after 1998 for these areas which have been defined since 1994 will be accepted by the Commission, pursuant to Article 100a(4), or would the Commission interpret such action as arbitrary discrimination?

Would this attitude be permissible, even though these standards existed prior to accession?

Will Article 100a(4) need to be clarified in the revision of the Maastricht Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

Certain provisions and annexes of the Accession Treaty provide for derogations for the application of a number of Community environmental requirements until the end of 1998. During this period the Commission is to undertake a review of the Community requirements. This review is at present in hand and its outcome should not be prejudiced.

The Commission, in its opinion to the intergovernmental conference, has not proposed revision of Article 100A ¶ 4 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1658/96 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council (24 June 1996)

Subject: Disabled parking in the EU

I have been informed by some of my constituents that British 'Orange Badges' used for disabled parking zones are not always recognized outside the UK, despite an EMCT recommendation of 6 December 1977 (due to be applicable no later than 1 January 1980) that this should be the case.

Could the Council assure me that everything will be done to rectify this problem and that it is pursuing agreement on the proposed Council recommendation for a parking pass for disabled persons with sufficient rigour to ensure a swift decision on this matter?

Reply (29 October 1996)

In December 1995 the Council received from the Commission a draft recommendation on a parking card for disabled persons. The Commission said it would submit an appropriate proposal in its medium-term social action programme for 1995-1997.

In December 1977, the Council of Transport Ministers meeting within the framework of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport had adopted a recommendation on the provision of parking facilities for disabled people.

In December 1995, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Recommendation which aimed to develop those intentions and address certain practical problems arising in the ECMT system.

That proposal is still being examined by the Council's subordinate bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2155/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Evasion of tobacco advertising rules

Large billboard advertisements have recently appeared in Belgium promoting an international kite festival to be held at Knokke during the summer. Although these purport to advertise a sporting event, around a fifth of the poster is taken up by the words Peter Stuyvesant. Despite this, the poster carries no health warning.

Will the Commission take or propose action to stop this blatant evasion of the rules governing advertising?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

There is no existing Community legislation imposing a health warning on tobacco posters, although a Council Directive imposes the use of health warnings on tobacco packaging ((Council Directive 89/622/EEC, as amended by Directive 92/41/EEC, OJ L 359, 8.12.1989 and OJ L 158, 11.6.1992. )). An amended Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the Member States' laws, regulations and administrative provisions on advertising of tobacco products ((OJ C 129, 21.5.1992. )), envisages a complete ban on the outdoor advertisements described by the Honourable Member.