ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/96 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Subsidies to potato-processing businesses

Disturbing reports have reached me from the potato-processing industry about subsidies to 'a french fry processing plant in the industrial zone of the city of Komotini, Thrace' (Greece). The total cost of the project reportedly runs to $12 million, of which $7 million consists of subsidies.

1. Has the Commission been notified of this subsidy?

2. Can the Commission state whether EU funds are involved in the project and, if so, in what amount?

3. Does the Commission agree that regional, national and/or European subsidies have the effect of distorting competition in this case, and is it if necessary prepared to prohibit this subsidy or ensure that it is rectified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

1. According to the information available to the Commission, an investment in the Komotini industrial zone for roughly the amounts mentioned by the Honourable Member for the total cost and subsidies was approved in 1995 under national law No 1892/92 on State aid for productive investments.

2. No Community funds were allocated to the investment in question, which is therefore an exclusively national aid.

3. The national law in question was notified to the Commission under Article 93(3) of the EC treaty and approved by it within the framework of the State aid procedure. The aid in question does not exceed the maximum rate laid down by the aforementioned law for the region in which the investment was made. Generally speaking, Community or national aid may be granted for a broad range of investments to do with the processing and marketing of agricultural products, with aid rates as high as 75% of eligible investment costs in Objective 1 regions, as is the case with Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products ((OJ L 91, 6.4.1990. )), provided the sectoral limits laid down by Decision 94/173/CE of 22 March 1994 ((OJ L 79, 23.3.1994. )) are complied with. These sectoral limits do not exclude french fries. The Commission currently has no plans to amend the Community policy in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3166/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (14 November 1996)

Subject: Danger of paracetamol intake

In reference to my previous question on the danger of paracetamol (E-1118/96) ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p. 33. )), the Commission did not give me a complete reply. I understand that the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution recommending that a warning should be included in the information provided with paracetamol. However, the Commission does not fully explain why it is failing to take steps to include the antidote methiodine in paracetamol, in order to make it safer and reduce its side-effects.

Could the Commission further elaborate on why the Commission is not prepared to take action to require national authorities to include methionine in paracetamol in order to prevent the fatal consequences of this product? Would the Commission be prepared to initiate more research into this issue?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

As indicated to the Honourable Member in the answer to her question E-1118/96, ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996. )) the Commission is not empowered to amend marketing authorizations issued by the Member States, who are also responsible for monitoring medicinal products. Nevertheless, it has asked the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products to carefully monitor the issue of paracetemol toxicity, in particular when large overdoses are taken.

It seems, at first sight, that incorporating methionine in all medicinal products containing paracetemol would not be justified, due to the potential adverse effects of methionine itself and to its not contributing to the therapy of patients taking medicinal products correctly.

The Commission recently asked the Agency to have experts in the Member States consider whether, in the light of the accidents which have occurred when excessive quantities of paracetemol have been taken, the requirements for its dispensing, labelling or even composition need to be changed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1765/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (5 July 1996)

Subject: Sale of a church in the Occupied part of Cyprus

On 6 April 1996 the English language Turkish-Cypriot newspaper, Cyprus Today, carried an advertisement by 'Kestin and Smith Estate Agents' offering for sale the church of Panagic Chrisotrimithiotisa in the village of Trimithi in the Occupied part of Cyprus. This church was built in the middle Byzantine period and would have been declared a listed monument. Between 11 and 17 May 1996 the same newspaper quoted that the monastery of Panagic of Eleousa-Sina in Karpesie had been converted by the occupying regime into an inn which was opened by the self-styled Prime Minster (Hakki Atun). This church has been declared a listed natural monument in 1965.

These are not isolated incidents but a part of a broader Turkish policy aimed at destroying the cultural heritage in the Occupied part of Cyprus.

Will the Council say:

What measures in intends to take to protect the heritage in the Occupied part of Cyprus which constitutes part of a general European heritage (the European Parliament has adopted a resolution on this matter ((OJ C 117, 22.4.1996, page 15. ))), and to what extent does it intend to raise the matter with the Turkish Government and will it call on the latter to comply with the rules of international law?

Answer (30 January 1997)

The Council has taken due note of the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 27 March 1996 which concerns, inter alia, the principle of safeguarding the cultural and religious heritage of the occupied part of Cyprus.

As part of its more general interest in the question of Cyprus, the Council is in favour of an overall settlement based on the concept of a bi-community and bi-zonal Cypriot Federation, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Finally, the matter to which the Honourable Member refers has not been brought to the Council's notice and does not in any case fall within its purview.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/96 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Mining and logging in Venezuela

Further to the Commission's participation in the debate on mining and logging in Venezuela on 24 October 1996:

1. Is the Commission aware of the current situation as regards the Venezuelan Government's intention of repealing the two laws (269 and 2552) which prohibit mining and logging in Amazonas State? What was the outcome of the meeting in Venezuela on 24 October 1996 on this subject?

2. How has the Commission taken account of the European Parliament's resolution of 24 October 1996 on Venezuela? What specific steps has the Commission taken against the Venezuelan Government's plan to permit mining and logging in Amazonas State?

3. What will the consequences be for the Commission's ECU 6.4 million environmental project in the Upper Orinoco-Casiquaire region if the Venezuelan Government does indeed permit mining and logging in Amazonas State? What position would the Commission adopt in response to such a move?

4. Has the Commission already received and approved an overall annual plan for the project in the Upper Orinoco-Casiquaire region? Has the Commission already provided funds to the Venezuelan Government for this project? If so, how much?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

1. - 2. According to the information passed on from Caracas, the proposal to repeal the two laws (269 and 2552) which prohibit mining and logging in Amazonas State was drawn up by its Government. At the joint ministerial meeting on 24 October 1996, the Venezuelan Government refused to grant such a waiver.

3. Extending 88 000 square kilometres, the Upper Orinoco-Casiquiare biosphere reserve covers the south-eastern half of Amazonas State. Seeing that through the financing agreement relative to the environmental project, the Venezuelan Government undertook to preserve the state of conservation of the area, the revocation of laws 269 and 2552 would not automatically mean that mining and logging would be carried out in the project area. Therefore, one would have to study the actual impact of such a measure on the project. Should the provisions of the financing agreement regarding conservation not be respected by the Venezuelan parties, the Commission could take measures as severe as suspending or terminating the project.

4. The Commission-financed project in the Upper Orinoco-Casiquiare region is currently in its start-up stage. On 18 March 1996, the Commission approved a start-up plan proffered by the project's co-directors. An initial instalment of ECU 280 000 has been paid.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/96 by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Financial assistance for Mongolia under the Tacis programme

1. What financial resources were allocated to Mongolia under the 1995 Tacis programme?

2. For what projects and operations have these resources been used?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

A total of 8 MECU were allocated to the Tacis action programme 1994-1995; 3,8 MECU for human resources development; 2.56 MECU in support of small and medium sized entreprises (SME) development, and 1 MECU to improve the reliability of energy plants at Darkhan and Choibalsan.

The SME development project (2,56 MECU) aims to:

- assist the government in formulating appropriate policies in order to develop an economic environment for SMEs

- provide advisory and information services to both newly formed and established SMEs

- provide information and communication facilities to accelerate the formation of business links between SME in Mongolia and prospective Community partners

The projects under implementation in the human resources development sector (3,8 MECU) are:

- reinforcement of employment services (recipient organisation: ministry of population, policy and labour)

- reform of economics higher education (recipient organisation: economic institute of the national university of Mongolia)

- education information system (recipient: Centre for scientific and technological information).

The project in the energy sector consists of preparing recommendations concerning the measures to be undertaken in order to stabilise the supply of electricity and heat in Choibalsan and Darkhan.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Decision 94/730/EC establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified plants - transposition in the Member States

1. Can Decision 94/730/EC ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994, p. 31. )) be applied even in the Member States which have not or only inadequately transposed Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. )) and the Member States against which proceedings are being brought for failure to transpose the legislation adequately?

a) If so, how can the articles and obligations deriving from Directive 90/220/EEC which are not used cease to be valid?

b) If so, how is the application of conditional articles ensured?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2394/96, E-2395/96, E-2396/96, E-2397/96, E-2398/96, E-2399/96, E-2400/96, E-2401/96, E-2402/96, E-2403/96 and E-2405/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The answers to the Written Questions indicated above raise a number of technical and legal problems concerning the implementing of Directive 90/220/EEC, ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) and in particular the arrangements for introducing simplified procedures.

The Commission is currently examining the way the Directive has been implemented since entering into force. It will be publishing a report, which will be sent to Parliament and the Council.

It is within this framework that the Honourable Member's questions will be examined, whereupon the Commission may take account of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3492/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (29 November 1996)

Subject: Italian television stations and competition

In Italy there are 8 nationally broadcast television channels, of which 3 are public (RAI TV) and 5 private.

Although officially defined as 'public service' stations, the three RAI channels actually broadcast programmes very similar to those shown on private stations, aimed at wide audiences and with a similar amount of advertising.

However, RAI receives an annual fee, which all Italians who own a television set are required to pay, regardless of whether or not they watch the programmes broadcast by state television.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it consider it to be compatible with the rules of competition in a free market?

Has the Commission ever taken formal measures to persuade Italy to end this distortion of market rules?

Or has the Commission authorized the Italian Government to grant RAI substantial and systematic state aid by means of the fee?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)

The Commission is aware that the public Italian television organization Radiotelevisone italiana (RAI), which operates three television channels, is partly financed by compulsory contributions from Italian television viewers. State funding for television is subject to the normal application of the state aid rules, including Article 92 (3) d EC Treaty which allows the Commission to consider compatible with the common market aid to promote cultural and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.

In 1994 and 1995 the Commission carried out a study on the financing of public television in the Member States. The intention is to extend this study to the new Member States and to Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, in order to assess all the elements of the financing of public television broadcasting in European economic area agreement.

Within the framework of state aid rules the Commission will then take decisions on a case-by-case basis. The Commission took its first decision in October 1996 to the effect that the funding that the Portuguese station Rádiotelevisão Portuguesa (RTP) was receiving from the state was compensation for public service obligations imposed on RTP. Consequently, such funding did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3450/96 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Decisions by the Commission on clearance of accounts

The Commission advances appropriations to Member States from the EAGGF Guarantee Section for the funding of agricultural expenditure. The Commission monitors each year whether the expenditure has been implemented in accordance with Community law. The Commission must refuse to cover expenditure out of the EAGGF where this has not been the case. This clearance procedure is set out in Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 ((OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13. )).

Can the Commission state the total amount of expenditure refused in the clearance procedure for each year since 1987 inclusive, broken down by Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

Trends in the corrections carried during the clearance of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Guarantee Section accounts from the 1987 financial year until the last year cleared, 1992, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy ((OJ L 94, 28.4.1970. )), has been sent in the form of tables directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament. Since corrections are made in national currency, the ecu rate used in the tables is the rate on the closest possible date to that on which the Commission adopted the accounts clearance decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) project, Philippines

Can the Commission say whether the consultations with indigenous peoples for which the bilateral agreement between the Philippines Government and the Commission provides have already taken place within the framework of the NIPAS project?

If so, can the Commission say what the outcome of these consultations was?

Can the Commission also say precisely how the indigenous peoples are involved in the formulation, management, implementation and evaluation of the project?

Do the indigenous peoples in the NIPAS area feel in any way threatened by the project?

Can the Commission say how the NIPAS project will help to meet the short- and long-term needs of indigenous peoples living in NIPAS areas?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

The national integrated protected areas programme (NIPAP) in the Philippines is currently approaching the end of its inception phase (recruitment of staff, setting up of office facilities, procurement of vehicles). So far only limited consultations have been carried out with indigenous peoples, intended essentially for introduction and briefing about the programme. The regular and in-depth consultations required for implementation, as specified in the bilateral agreement, should start next year when NIPAP will endeavour to carry out on-site field preparatory activities.

The initial consultations would seem to indicate the NIPAP's objectives and activities are compatible with the desires and needs of the indigenous peoples. However, if during the subsequent stages of the project any of the indigenous people should choose not to participate further in NIPAP, their protected area will be dropped from the programme, as indicated in the bilateral agreement.

Consultation with indigenous peoples will take place in various ways but mainly through the so-called community-based approach, which is generally adopted in Community-assisted development projects in the Philippines. The community-based approach ensures full involvement and acceptance of the project by the local communities.

Although some indigenous peoples are concerned that the legislation in force (i.e. the national integrated protected areas system (NIPAS) law of 1992) might affect their culture and livelihood because of the enforcement of restrictions on their way of living, there are no indications that they feel threatened by the project. Moreover, the bilateral agreement specifies that no interventions will be undertaken without the consent of indigenous cultural communities.

NIPAP actually helps the indigenous peoples to deal with their subsistence level in the short-term through the introduction of alternative economic activities. The long-term interests of the indigenous people will be taken care of through various measures such as delineation and demarcation of protected areas which are to be managed by the communities, assistance in their claims for ancestral domains and improvement of their living conditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2894/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Control of hormones in meat

Could the Commission explain the reasons behind the decision taken by the Agriculture Council on 29 April 1996 to re-enact the ban on hormonal growth promoters and to extend the ban on ß-agonists?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Council Directive 96/22/EC ((OJ L 125, 23. 5.1996, p. 3. )) concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists was adopted on the basis of Commission proposals in October 1993 ((COM(93) 441, OJ C 302, 9.11.1993. )). These proposals were a follow-up to a communication from the Commission to the Council and to Parliament which drew attention to anabolic substances being widely available and illegally used and to Member States' difficulties and deficiencies in taking effective measures. The report highlighted the fact that new and more effective substances were continually being developed and dwelled particularly on beta-agonists, the cause of several serious cases of human poisoning, and their illegal use on a massive scale. The Commission therefore considered it necessary to clarify and consolidate existing Directives as regards the prohibition on the use of hormones as growth promoters and to add beta agonists to the list of prohibited substances (except for certain therapeutic purposes in the case of horses and pets).

It should be pointed out to the Honourable Member that Parliament has on several occasions declared itself in favour of a total ban on growth promoters in stockfarming and of such a ban being more closely monitored and checked and of stiffer penalties being imposed in the event of non-compliance. On 18 January 1996, Parliament asked the Commission and the Council to continue opposing the importation into the Community of meat treated with hormones, requested the maintenance of the total ban on the use of growth promoters in stockfarming and, to this end, asked the Council to adopt without delay the Commission proposal on which it had delivered its opinion on 19 April 1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/96 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Subsidies for the French textile and clothing industry

The French Government plans to exempt the country's textile and clothing industry from payment of social contributions amounting to around DM 600 million per annum. For the French textile sector, this amounts to a considerable cost and competitive advantage over producers from other Member States.

1. Is the Commission aware of the French Government's subsidy plans?

2. If so, does the Commission consider that such massive subsidies are compatible with the principle of the harmonization of competitive conditions in the EU?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take against the planned relief for the French textile industry?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)

1. The Commission is aware of the experimental measures to reduce the burden of social security contributions on the textile, clothing and shoe-leather industries. The French authorities notified it of the measures on 27 March 1996 in accordance with Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission takes the view that the measures include aid caught by Article 92(1) of the Treaty. On 15 May it therefore decided to institute proceedings under Article 93(2) in respect of the measures because of their sectoral nature and because no reasons were given as to why it was necessary to accord these industries more favourable treatment than the other sectors of industry.

On 2 October the Commission decided to amend the grounds on which the proceedings had been instituted so as to take account of the change in the nature of the aid granted by the French authorities. While initially ranking as aid for job creation, the measures are now described as being designed to offset all or some of the additional costs that the firms will face as a result of the reorganization of working time to which they have agreed.

2. The Commission's position regarding sectoral employment aid is set out in the guidelines on aid to employment ((OJ C 334, 12.12.1995. )), to which the Honourable Member's attention is drawn. On the basis of those guidelines, the Commission had adopted on 30 April 1996 a negative final decision on the experimental measures for reducing the burden of social security contributions that the Italian Government had been planning for the footwear industry, on the grounds that such aid was incompatible with the single market.

3. The matter at issue is being closely examined, and the Commission will publish its findings at the earliest possible opportunity.