ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/96 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Council (29 April 1996)

Subject: Problems with customs checks

What measures are planned in response to the following criticisms voiced by the Committee of the Union of Financial Officials in Europe (UFE) on 22 September 1995?

'The UFE criticizes the fact that the quality of customs checks is often inadequate. Customs checks are carried out in the context of a situation characterized by a flood of information and goods, i.e. by mass transit. All this can no longer be dealt with using current monitoring methods.

In view of the continuing high incidence of forgeries, a paper-based procedure is unsatisfactory.

Very few customs examinations are carried out, the identification checks are inadequate, the stamp administration system is outdated. The simplified procedures and the transit procedure, i.e. precisely those procedures designed to cope with mass transit, constitute particularly weak points in the system.

Customs procedures are often used to cope with the high volume of traffic and cannot focus on risk areas.

Many offices also suffer from a shortage of equipment. Centralized and decentralized information processing is inadequate.'

Reply (7 August 1996)

The Council, as legislator, naturally takes an interest in the proper application of the customs regulations which it has enacted, and in particular the Community Customs Code, which states that customs authorities may carry out all the controls they deem necessary. However, problems relating to the nature and quality of checks are a matter not for the Council but for the Commission and the Member States, whose customs administrations are responsible for applying the Code correctly. It is therefore in the first place for the Commission or the Member States to bring forward any measures that may be necessary to resolve the problems to which the Honourable Member refers in her question.

The Council itself is aware of the problems pinpointed by the Commission in its communication of 29 March 1995 on fraud in the transit procedure, and has reacted by adopting, on 23 November 1995, a Resolution on the computerization of customs transit systems in which it requests the Commission and the Member States to initiate a process intended to lead to the introduction of a computerized transit system, operational by 1998 at the latest.

Finally, the Council would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the proposal for a Decision currently being examined at the European Parliament and the Council concerning the adoption of the Community customs programme ("Customs 2000"), on which the Council adopted a common position on 22 December 1995 (OJ C 37, 9 February 1996). The guiding principle which the Council followed in drawing up its common position was to apply the latest techniques, such as targeting and risk analysis, to provide a high standard to checks without impeding the normal flow of legitimate trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Political prisoners in Myanmar (Burma)

1. Is the Commission aware that (according to a Reuters press report of 4 April 1996) the authorities in Myanmar have increased the prison sentences of 21 political prisoners by five to seven years because they passed information relating to their imprisonment to the United Nations?

2. What steps is the Commission taking at present, inter alia on the basis of previous European Parliament resolutions, against the military regime in that country and is it prepared to strengthen any measures in the light of the reports referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1996)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member. Indeed, it seems that an important number of political prisoners already jailed in Insein prison in Rangoon have been heavily sentenced with supplementary years of imprisonment for allegedly giving information to the United Nations concerning conditions in the Burmese prisons.

The Commission has always supported the resolutions of the Parliament and participates fully in the declarations and demarches made in the name of the European Union. The Commission will continue to monitor closely the situation in Burma and is willing to support any call on the State Law and Order Restoration Council to respect basic human rights and to engage in a dialogue with the democratic and ethnic forces aiming at real national reconciliation and the promotion of democracy in Burma.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/96 by Giacomo Santini (UPE) and Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Special aid for cattle farmers

Italian cattle farmers account for 20% of total Community production, with 2 200 000 head. 70% of capacity is concentrated in the north east of the country and over the past few months hundreds of livestock farmers have closed down their operations because of the serious crisis.

The Commission has proposed a special aid scheme under the EAGGF Guarantee Section of ECU 650 m (some Lit 1200 bn) for all the Member States.

Given that this amount should be allocated on the basis of the impact on production and that the method of allocating the single production premium proposed in the price package for the 1996/7 marketing year is based on calves aged 10 months, thus perpetuating a situation which is to the advantage of German and French farmers from whom Italian, Spanish, Greek and Portuguese farmers import veal calves, why has the Commission earmarked only 6% of this amount, i.e. ECU 39 m, for Italy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1669/96 and P-1900/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-1509/96 by Mr Musumeci ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p.104. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/96 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Council (19 April 1996)

Subject: Staff policy

To be successful, a strategy for the introduction of the Central and Eastern European States requires an active training policy for citizens of those states in the institutions of the European Union. I would therefore ask:

1. How many stagiaires from Central and Eastern Europe have worked at the Council since 1990 and where were they placed?

2. Is there a category of stagiaires from the Central and Eastern European States?

3. According to which criteria are they selected?

4. How many stagiaires (divided up according to country) will work in the Council in the coming years?

Reply (2 August 1996)

Ad preambule

ad paras 1 and 2:

The Council shares the assumption underling the question, namely that an active policy in respect of traineeships for nationals from potential applicant countries in Eastern and Central Europe is desirable well in advance of accession dates.

However, there has yet been no planned approach to this problem, and traineeships have not as yet been reserved for nationals of the Members States in question (Cf. also reply to pt. 3 below).

Given the limited resources available to most Institutions in this area, and the relatively large number of potential applicant countries, the Council believes that the adequation of needs and available resources are probably best dealt with on an interinstitutional basis; the Council stands ready to participate in any discussions which may be organised to arrange such an interinstitutional approach.

Ad para 3:

Traineeships in the Council Secretariat are, under normal circumstances, restricted to nationals of the Member States of the Union. This requirement is, however, relaxed on the occasion of the accession of new Member States, and candidacies from known accession States are accepted within the twenty-four months period prior to accession.

The selection of trainees is decentralised to the various Directorates General. An essential Selection criterion is the possession of a university degree relevant to the work of the Directorate General in question, or the requirement that participation in a traineeship form an essential part of the training leading to the obtaining of a university degree or diploma.

Each Directorate General is granted two paid traineeships each year and every effort is made to ensure a balance between Member States. About 24 paid traineeships are granted each year. A similar number of unpaid traineeships are also accorded.

Ad para 4:

The number of traineeships accorded in future years will not vary greatly from the figures set out above, as the capacity to cope with increased numbers of trainees is not available, either in terms of manpower for supervision or office space. The number of paid traineeships available depends directly on the funds voted by the budgetary authority.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 961/96 by Christine ODDY to the Council. Children imprisoned in Honduras



Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0032



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0961/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Council (29 April 1996) Subject: Children imprisoned in Honduras Is the Council aware that children are still being detained in adult prisons in Honduras, in clear contravention of both Honduran law and United Nations Conventions? What action will the Council take to ensure this practice ceases? Reply (2 August 1996) I refer the Honourable Member to the reply which the Council gave to Written Question No E-2747/95 ((OJ C 79, 18.03.1996. )), put by Christine CRAWLEY, and to Oral Question NO H-285/96, put by Wayne DAVID (Question Time on 22 May 1996).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1548/96 by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Privatized utilities

Can the Commission give an update on the current state of the Commission's investigation into the payment of ERDF grants to privatized utilities. Since the Commission launched its investigation eighteen months ago, several mergers of privatized utilities are to take place, namely Severn Trent and South West Water, both of which have received substantial sums from the ERDF. The Tyne Port authority is to be sold off, again having benefited from over £6 million in EC grants. Can the Commissioner state whether a claw-back mechanism exists, should the grants not fall within the terms of the Structural Fund Regulations?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to her oral question H-613/96 during question time at Parliament's July 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (July 1996). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Effects of the borer plague on the pinewoods in the Murcia region (Spain)

Following the prolonged drought, the borer plague is now affecting more than 7000 hectares of pinewoods in the Murcia region. Its effects are compounding those of the drought and of forest fires, increasing the risks of desertification in a highly sensitive area.

1. What action does the Commission intend to take to limit the effects of this problem?

2. When does the Commission intend to submit a proposal for a Community forestry policy, given that this is essential to complete the range of internal policies and to deal with the serious environmental problems which are arising?

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

The Community is very anxious to protect its forests and to this end has adopted various instruments.

As regards the case specifically referred to by the honourable member, it should be noted that the regional development programme adopted by the Commission for Murcia includes disease and pest control. It is therefore the responsibility of the regional authorities to re-direct priorities, as necessary, to suit the needs arising.

Generally speaking, however, the forestry action programme adopted in 1989 and reinforced in 1992 as part of the back-up to the reform of the common agricultural policy, affords a number of instruments covering in particular the afforestation, reforestation, development and protection of forests.

The following are worth mentioning:

- the afforestation of farmland and the improvement of wooded areas in agricultural holdings, provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 on forestry measures in agriculture, ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )) under which the Commission in 1994 granted funding for the Spanish programme of forestry measures in agriculture to the tune of ECU 430 million from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund;

- the development and improvement of forests as part of the regional programmes;

- the Cohesion Fund, from which programmes to control soil erosion in Spain, in particular through reforestation, have received Community funding;

- the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution (Regulation (EEC) No 2157/92 ((OJ L 217, 31.7.1992. ))) and against fire (Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (2)), under which Community funding totalling ECU 12 million has been granted to 57 fire-prevention projects in Spain between 1992 and 1996.

It should be noted that those two Regulations expire at the end of 1996 and a Commission proposal to extend their validity will be put before the Council and Parliament in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Observance of plant variety protection agreements in the associated countries

Infringement of plant variety protection provisions in the European Union's partner states is inflicting considerable economic suffering on European plant breeders. It is estimated that two thirds of the roses subject to variety protection imported from Poland to Germany have been bred without a licence. This 'variety piracy' has now become a serious problem for German rose breeders. Recently the Lübeck customs investigation unit impounded illegally bred roses from Poland valued at well over DM 100 000.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure observance of the conditions on plant variety protection agreed in the Europe Agreements with our partner countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. It has asked the Member State concerned for information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1681/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Indigenous peoples

What projects relating to indigenous peoples were supported in 1995 under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights?

Can the Commission indicate the specific projects and the amount granted in each case?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

In response to a request from Parliament, the Commission is currently compiling an exhaustive and detailed report on all the grants made from the headings of Chapter B-7 of the Budget in 1995.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to consult this report, which will be forwarded to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control once it has been finalized.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: Exports of crystallized fruits produced in Italy

APT-UNION SIPRIAL, which markets crystallized fruits in Italy with the help of aid provided by the French Government, has initiated court proceedings against AMBROSIO SRL of San Giuseppe Vesuviano in the Naples area, which exports crystallized fruits - including three-coloured melon cubes - to France, on the grounds that the labels on the products concerned bear no guarantee of the quality of the contents.

Given that the USL (Local Health Centre) certificate, which under Italian law must be obtained before a product may be placed on the market, contains details of the marketability test carried out on the product, together with certification by the Italian health authorities that it is suitable for sale, the case to be brought by the French authorities before the civil court in Avignon on 6 June 1996 would appear spurious, to say the least.

Would the Commission therefore take urgent action to ensure that products may move freely within the Community by drawing up an unambiguous directive harmonizing the existing directives, in such a way as to rule out dubious or, what is worse, spurious interpretations?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)

As the Honourable Member states, the case is currently before the Avignon civil court. Therefore, in accordance with its normal practice, the Commission is not in a position to comment on the substance of the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1355/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-5031 (Training and promotion of awareness of development issues), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

Under heading B7-5031 (Training and promotion of awareness of development issues), the Commission provides Community grants to:

- European training institutions offering specialized courses to nationals of developing countries;

- youth organizations with a view to raising European public awareness of development issues;

- European and ACP television companies, in the form of part-financing, for documentary films to promote awareness of development issues.

In 1995, 23 training schemes received grants totalling ECU 2 million, 53 youth organizations received grants totalling ECU 349 000 and ECU 464 000 was disbursed in the form of part-financing for documentary films. The residue under this heading (amounts excluding grants to the above bodies) was allocated to technical assistance, information and communication projects.

Tables setting out details concerning this budget heading have been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat-General.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Arrest of four journalists in Turkey

Of the four journalists from the Turkish weekly paper 'Alinteri' (Sabiha Budak, Filiz Uziurk, Mehtap Kuruçay and Incigul Basel) who were arrested in the night of 3 May 1996 (see my question P-1305/96), it is now known that Incigul Basel has been admitted to the intensive care unit of the Capa Tip Fakültesi hospital with head wounds. The remaining three journalists are still being held.

1. Is the Commission aware that these journalists were arrested under the anti-terrorism law and that they can therefore be held for 15 to 30 days incommunicado?

2. Is it aware of the Amnesty International reports which indicate that people who are arrested under this law are often tortured to force a confession?

3. Is the Commission willing to request an explanation from Turkey concerning this practice and concerning the situation of the journalists still in detention?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

As the Commission informed the Honourable Member in its reply to written question P-1305/96, information has been sought from the Turkish authorities concerning the events related in the written question. To date, the Commission has received no reply from those authorities.

When the Member of the Commission responsible travelled to Ankara in April, and when Turkey's Prime Minister Mr Mesut Yilmaz visited the Commission on 4 June, the Commission took the opportunity to stress to its Turkish interlocutors the importance it attached to the pursuit of the reforms undertaken last year with a view to consolidating democracy and safeguarding human rights.

The Commission will continue to pursue dialogue on these matters with the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1156/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Destruction of the Meuse-Schwalm-Nette cross-border natural park by the Garzweiler II open-cast lignite mine

1. Is the Commission aware that the Garzweiler II project would cause irreparable damage to the Meuse-Schwalm-Nette natural park, since extracting lignite would lower the water table? How does the Commission assess this risk?

2. Does the Commission also take the view that the Garzweiler II project must be halted if infiltration alters the groundwater level, since in that event the conditions for approval would not be met?

3. Can the Commission guarantee that the procedure used by the Rheinbraun AG mining company will preserve the groundwater level?

4. Does the Commission share the concerns of conservation organizations that the procedure used is totally inadequate from the point of view of protecting the natural park?

5. What measures are available to the Commission and what measures is it planning to take in response to the impending destruction of the natural park?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

The possibility of deterioration of two protection areas designated under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) (Krickenbecher Seen, Germany, and Meynweg, Netherlands) within the Meuse-Schwalm-Nette natural park has already been the subject of a complaint to the Commission. In this context, the German authorities informed the Commission that comprehensive examinations and calculations had been carried out in order to clarify the impact of the planned open-cast mining on the groundwater in those areas. Based on the results, it had been decided to carry out measures for the recharge of groundwater in order to avoid a lowering of the groundwater level and negative ecological impact.

In addition, the German authorities indicated that a monitoring programme would accompany the project in order to assess its long-term impact on the fauna and flora in the adjoining zones. Should there be evidence that the project has a considerable negative impact on the areas in question, the existing legislation of North Rhine-Westphalia would enable additional protection measures to be taken or for the authorization of the project to be reviewed or even cancelled.

As it had not been established that there was an infringement of Directive 79/409/EEC, the Commission decided in October 1995 to close the complaint file. However, this does not preclude further action by the Commission should new facts be brought to its attention which would justify taking up the case again.