ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2767/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: environmental protection

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, indicated that the Presidency felt it important that, at the IGC, the Union should undertake to incorporate environmental protection requirements into all its policies.

With this in mind, does the Presidency not feel that it should propose to the IGC that clear confirmation be given of the all too often disputed applicability of Articles 36 and 100a(3), which provide that each Member State has the right to protect its environment more effectively than its neighbours by adopting national standards which meet the expectations of its people?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2919/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)

Subject: Report on the development of Turkey-EU relations following the implementation of the customs union

On close reading, the report raises many questions:

1. Why does the report fail to mention that the Council's call to avoid the use of force is directed at Turkey, which is threatening Greece with war if it makes use of its right to extend its territorial waters in accordance with the law of the sea?

2. Why does it ignore the fact that the violence in Cyprus was provoked by the Turkish-Cypriot side, which even murdered two unarmed Cypriots? Is that not contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Commission's declarations following the murders?

3. Why does it mention only the number of political prisoners that have been released and not mention those who remain in prison or those who have been arrested in the meantime?

4. Why does it report the statements by the justice minister of the previous government regarding the prosecution of torturers? Did the Commission follow developments in those prosecutions? If not, what point is there in merely reporting statements?

5. Why does it ignore the human rights situation in northern Cyprus, which is particularly poor, at a time when real power in northern Cyprus is being exercised by Turkey's army of occupation?

6. Why does it make no mention of the 400 actions against Turkey pending before the European Human Rights Commission, or the first judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, which condemn Turkey?

7. Why does it wholly disregard the resolutions of the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Honourable Member refers to the annual report on the implementation of the customs union with Turkey and economic and political aspects thereof, including the country's democratic process and human rights situation, which the Commission undertook to provide during the Parliament debate of autumn last year.

With regard to the Honourable Member's first question concerning the Council's statements, the Commission referred, without further comment, to these statements, with which, moreover, Parliament is fully acquainted. As regards Cyprus, a country that is not the subject of its report, the Commission relied on statements by the Presidency in the context of the common foreign and security policy.

With regard to the other issues raised, the Commission endeavoured to take account of all the information in its possession and to present that information as objectively as possible.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it took account of Parliament's resolutions, and in particular that of 19 September this year, when drafting its report.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2960/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Environment and olive-growing

Is the Commission aware of the impact on the environment which would arise from a crisis in olive-growing, which is of fundamental importance for some regions in the south of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2953/96, E-2954/96, E-2955/96, E-2956/96, E-2957/96, E-2958/96, E-2959/96, E-2960/96, E-2961/96, E-2962/96 and E-2964/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different options for the reform of the olive oil common market organization (CMO) in the very near future. A document will then be transmitted speedily to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission will certainly take into account the Honourable Members' remarks and questions concerning employment, intervention aid to real production, aid per tree, consumption aid, quality, impact on the environment and the specific problems of Spain and some of its producer regions.

It would not be correct to comment in detail at this stage on the various options for reforms except to repeat that the new common market organisation should be transparent, simple, easy to control and should target producers efficiently.

The Commission attaches great importance to quality and believes that, whatever option is chosen, there will be an important role for Member States and regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3125/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Piracy at sea

The Greek press reports that there has been an increase in cases of piracy over the last two years.

A report by the International Maritime Bureau and its Regional Piracy Centre refers to the Far East, Central and South America, S.E. Asia and Somalia as the regions with the highest incidence with Brazil showing a ten-fold increase in the number of cases over 1994.

Most acts of piracy involve bulk carrier vessels, followed by general cargo vessels, tankers, container ships and ro-ro vessels.

The damage caused is not only economic, in a considerable number of cases crew members are injured or even killed.

In view of the gravity of this matter, will the Commission say whether it has addressed the issue and what measures it intends to take to stamp out this practice which is so damaging to Community shipping, a fundamental component of which is the particularly hard-hit Greek fleet?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

It is true that, on the basis of the information which the Commission has received from the International Maritime Bureau, the number of cases of piracy, which dropped appreciably in 1994, seems to have increased again in 1995 and in the first half of 1996. The regions most affected are South-East Asia and recently, to a lesser degree, Latin America, in particular, Brazil.

These matters are mainly the responsibility of the States in whose territorial waters the incidents occur. The Commission is keeping a close watch on developments and together with the Member States takes every opportunity to alert the States in question and urges them to take the appropriate measures. However, it would remind the Honourable Member that it does not have a right of initiative in the fight against maritime piracy, this being a matter relating to police cooperation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Demeton-S.Methyl

Is the Commission aware of the harmful effects of the chemical Demeton-S.Methyl used as a pesticide in crop sprays?

Because of the danger posed to public health this pesticide has been banned in the United States of America. Will the Commission propose limitations on the use of Demeton-S.Methyl to avoid the airborne drift of this dangerous substance?

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

The Commission is making contact with the United States authorities in order to collect the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2991/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Restructuring the fisheries sector

In connection with the negotiations on the restructuring of the European fisheries fleet for the 1997-2002 period the attitude of the UK Government, which has established political linkage between these negotiations and the Intergovernmental Conference discussions, has recently been made public.

What attitude is the Commission to adopt vis-à-vis the UK's position?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)

The United Kingdom has established political linkage between the programme for restructuring the European fishing fleet for the period 1997-2002 ((OJ C 259, 6.9.1996. )) and the problem of quota hopping raised by it at the intergovernmental conference.

What the United Kingdom government calls quota hopping is a consequence of applying the basic rules of the EC treaty concerning free movement of goods, persons, capital and services in the fisheries sector. The Court of Justice has several times confirmed the legality of operations involving the establishment of a Community firm operating in the fisheries sector on the territory of a Member State other than its Member State of origin.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3272/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Interim RPI

It is increasingly clear from the media that there are real difficulties in finding universally accepted statistical measurements.

The Commission evaluates the convergence of prices on the basis of the interim retail price index. Does this index coincide with or diverge from the retail price index used by Portugal?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3259/96, E-3260/96, E-3261/96, E-3262/96, E-3263/96, E-3264/96, E-3265/96, E-3266/96, E-3267/96, E-3268/96, E-3269/96, E-3270/96, E-3271/96, E-3272/96, E-3273/96 and E-3274/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

Under Protocol No 6 on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the EC Treaty 'Inflation shall be measured by means of the consumer price index on a comparable basis, taking into account national differences.' This requirement is currently met through a process of harmonization based on the national consumer price indices (CPIs).

According to Council Regulation No 2494/95 on harmonized indices of consumer prices (HICPs) ((OJ L 257, 27.10.1995. )), harmonization should be considered as a stepwise approach in two stages. Stage I established in February 1996 a set of interim indices of consumer prices (IICPs). The IICPs are in fact the national CPIs with the coverage of goods and services adjusted to reduce non-comparability, particularly by excluding certain non-market services, such as health, education and owner occupied housing.

National CPIs can thus be seen as coincident with the corresponding IICPs regarding methods, concepts and definitions, apart from the coverage of goods and services. Numerically, the indices differ as a result of these differences in the coverage ((COM(96) 560. )). For most of the Member States, the differences in the inflation rates measured as a twelve month change, whether on an annual or monthly basis, are small, ranging from 0,0 to ±0,2 percentage points. For some Member States (Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) the differences are bigger, mainly because of housing costs, particularly where interest payments are used in the national CPIs.

Though not strictly comparable, IICPs provide for the time being the most comparable basis for the assessment of inflation convergence among Member States. The Commission will, however, assess inflation convergence during the period before the start of stage three of economic and monetary union, as required by the Treaty, on the basis of comparable HICPs. These will be launched with Stage II of the harmonization of CPIs in February 1997 and will be based on appropriately designed definitions, concepts and methods.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2978/96 by Pietro Di Prima (UPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Illegal immigration at Lampedusa

Lampedusa, Italy's southernmost island, is now considered the Achilles heel of Europe. More than three thousand non-Community nationals have landed there illegally in one year. All have been registered, put on ships bound for Porto Empedocle and given travel documents. In Lampedusa, which has a local population of 5,500, the non-Community nationals have created many problems: brawls, threats and even attacks on public officials. The people of the island are rightly protesting to the Italian Government, feel themselves abandoned, unprotected and are threatening a strike to stop all activity on the island. Furthermore, the non-Community nationals are also subjected to inhuman treatment, since at great cost they are crammed on boats which are barely afloat, and some drown during the voyage. This is the result of the Martelli law, an obsolete law in Italy which should already have adapted to Schengen.

Does the Commission not think it should intervene to:

1. Call on Italy to amend the Martelli law immediately?

2. Call on the competent Italian authorities to patrol the borders to curb this illegal immigration?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)

1. Domestic political debate on the reform of national legislation in the field of immigration is a matter for the Member States. Preparatory work has begun in Italy on a reform of the immigration laws. The Commission is aware of the importance of combating illegal immigration and the networks it uses, which calls for effective controls at the Member States' external borders. Consequently, since the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for these subjects to be regarded henceforth by the Member States as matters of common interest (Article K.1(2) and (3)), several decisions have been adopted on admission and deportation. These are not mandatory instruments, but they mark the beginnings of a common response.

2. As regards movements across the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of border controls, in 1993 the Commission presented to the Council a draft Convention ((OJ C 11, 15.1.1994. )) proposing common rules. Unfortunately, although the European Council has made a great many statements (most recently in Florence in June 1996), it still has not reached an agreement on this draft. As a result, controls are carried out in accordance with national rules or international agreements linking two or more Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: Community powers in the employment sphere

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, said that the Presidency had submitted to the IGC a draft text including in the Treaty a new title (or a new chapter) on the Community's powers in the employment sphere.

Is the Presidency not concerned that this might lead to a further duplication of responsibility between the European institutions and the Member States, which would make the actual responsibilities of each still more difficult to pin down, lead to still more frequent violations of the subsidiarity principle, and further undermine the overall effectiveness of any measures taken?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3670/96 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (11 December 1996)

Subject: Animal welfare

What steps is the Commission taking with a view to possibly including in the Treaty a new title on animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

The Commission, while very much in favour of ensuring a high level of protection of animals in agriculture, during transport and when used for research purposes, has not taken the initiative to suggest the inclusion in the Treaty of a specific title on this subject. Several Member States have, however, proposed to include a specific reference to the protection of animals in the revised Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3279/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: Concession of public services and calculation of the public deficit

The media are increasingly reflecting the current difficulty of obtaining universally accepted statistics.

Can the revenue arising from the concession of the right to provide public services on a franchise basis be taken into account to reduce the deficit where sales occur?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3276/96, E-3277/96, E-3278/96 and E-3279/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

In the case of privatization or other forms of sale of shares and equities, receipts by the general government are recorded as financial transactions. They have therefore no direct effect on the level of the deficit of the general government, which is defined in the Treaty as the balance of non-financial operations. This rule applies to both direct sales by the government and indirect sales (organized through a holding company for example).

On the contrary, the sale of rights or licences by the general government is regarded, in principle, as non-financial transactions. It is recorded in the capital account and thus taken into account when determining general government deficit.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/96 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: BSE pronouncement

What consequences does the Commission think should be drawn about Director-General Guy Legras for having said about BSE:

- 'we should avoid a debate in the scientific committees as any discussion of BSE will inevitably create problems for the market in meat'? Does the Commission agree that, in saying that, he was placing greater importance on stable meat markets than on consumer health?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)

The matter to which the Honourable Member refers is presumably a letter from Mr Legras, Director General for agriculture to Mr Perissich, Director General for the internal market, dated 1 March 1993. At that time France had recently introduced a ban on the use of certain tissues of cattle and sheep in baby food, going beyond the advice of the scientific veterinary committee. The matter had been raised in a meeting of the heads of services of the Member States dealing with food safety. Delegates requested that the matter be referred to the scientific committee for food.

The context of the letter was that the scientific veterinary committee had been giving advice consistently to the Commission on bovine spongiform encephalopathy matters since 1989 and, therefore, was the scientific committee with the greatest expertise. In fact the scientific committee for food had created a working party on the matter because the proposal for a directive on babyfood specifically referred to the use of offals. In the event, a joint working group of the two committees examined the matter and the scientific committee for food, at its meeting of 16 and 17 September 1993, confirmed the previous advice of the scientific veterinary committee to the effect that the measures currently in place gave sufficient protection to public health.

While giving priority to the protection for public health, the Commission has at the same time a responsibility to manage the beef market. It must, therefore, ensure that measures are appropriate and necessary. It would be irresponsible if the Commission reacted to every new concern or information in a manner which created unnecessary public anxiety and caused serious repercussions for the market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: BSE

1. In which non-Community countries where BSE has occurred in cattle is there an export ban or a ban on the import of cattle and beef products into the European Union? Where such a ban exists, which products does it cover?

2. What individual measures, over and above the export ban on British cattle and beef products, has the Commission taken to curb the spread of BSE through intra-Community trade and trade with other countries in which BSE has occurred (slaughter plans, agreements, etc.)?

3. Which countries outside the European Union have imposed an import ban on British beef or beef products on their own initiative? In which year did those countries impiose the ban in each case? What products does the ban cover and are those bans still in force?

4. Can the Commission state whether the British Government has appealed or intends to appeal to the WTO about non-Community countries which have imposed an import ban on British cattle or beef products on their own initiative?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)

1. There is no Community ban on imports from third countries into the Community in the context of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). All third countries from which the Community imports live bovines, meat or bovine derived products are considered as countries with a low incidence of BSE or as free countries. Community rules concerning imports from third countries are in accordance with the provisions of the International office of epizootics (IOE) international animal health code.

2. The Commission has, in addition to the temporary export ban on live bovine animals, beef and derived bovine products from the United Kingdom, taken a series of actions in respect of BSE. Examples of such actions are the mandatory notification of BSE cases in the Community, the ban on feeding of protein derived from mammalian tissues to ruminant species (with the exception of certain products e.g. milk), the approval of heat treatment systems for processing animal waste, and the approval of national eradication programmes for BSE.

3. The ban in Commission Decisions 96/239/EC ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996. )) and 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996. )) on emergency measures to protect against BSE covers the dispatch of live bovines, beef or bovine derived products to third countries as well as to Member States. Prior to the adoption of Decision 96/239/EC, as far as the Commission is aware, the following third countries had adopted unilateral restrictions on beef products originating in the United Kingdom: Peru, Benin, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Algeria, Gaza, Iran, Korea, Lebanon, Singapore, Tunisia, Turkey, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Guinea B., Togo, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, China, United States and Congo. Most of them were taken in the early nineties.

4. The Commission has no information concerning any such course of action by the British government.