ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2043/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Equal pay

Danmarks Statistik has recently published detailed statistics on pay in the private sector in Denmark. They reveal that women in the private sector have a much lower hourly rate than their male colleagues, regardless of whether the figures are broken down by sector, duties or education.

Does the Commission have data on the differences between men's and women's pay in the other Member States?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

From the beginning the principle of equal pay for women and men was an integral part of Community law (Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC) ((OJ N L 45, 19.2.1975. )). However, despite the existence of this Community legislation, which all Member States have transposed into their national domestic orders, the principle of equal pay for men and women workers has not yet become a reality. The gap in pay between men and women in the Community is still a very large one and in some cases is even growing, because of economic difficulties which seem to affect women more severely than men.

In the light of these circumstances the Commission adopted a memorandum in 1994 that defines the scope and concept of equal pay for work of equal value and that puts forward guidelines on the criteria to be taken into account in regard to job evaluation and classification.

This document was submitted for information and discussion to all interested parties affected by the problem of equal pay. On 17 July 1996, as a follow-up to this memorandum, the Commission adopted a code of good practice on equal pay for men and women for work of equal value, designed to provide practical advice to employers and parties to collective negotiations.

This code is intended to apply both to the public and private sectors. It is not a legally binding instrument but it contains recommendations which employers are encouraged to follow by accommodating them to the dimension and structure of their firms.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Humanitarian aid for, and cooperation with, Cuba

The European Parliament has shown great interest in the development of aid activities (humanitarian or otherwise) in respect of Cuba and, inter alia, has created a special budget heading.

What initiatives have so far been approved and what are the criteria for selecting the related projects submitted by non-governmental organizations?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

Last year Parliament created a special budget heading to back projects carried out by NGOs in Cuba. This heading was entered for the record only and did not therefore earmark any appropriations.

Although a number of projects run by European and Cuban NGOs are financed from budget headings and appropriations administered by the Commission, the Commission nonetheless opted to make a transfer of ECU 300 000 enabling a project to be started under the special heading referred to above. This project, which has just got under way, is designed to help rehabilitate an agricultural cooperative situated in Laguna de Piedras-Vinales, an area of considerable tourist and cultural attraction, so that members of the cooperative can diversify their sources of income by developing rural tourism. The project also involves promotion of this type of tourism in Europe.

No decision has yet been taken on projects which might be funded under this heading in 1996. The Commission's selection criteria reflect the content of the budget heading remarks.

The Commission wishes to stress with regard to humanitarian schemes that European NGOs have been funded from appropriations under budget heading B7-210, which covers humanitarian aid and emergency food aid for developing countries and other non-member countries that are victims of disasters or serious crises.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: US communications base in Yorkshire

What discussions has the Commission had with the United States Government to gain assurance of the direction of surveillance at the United States' Menwith Hill site?

What activity would the Commission consider a threat to European Union security, either military or commercial?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0617/96 by Mr Bowe during question time at Parliament's July II 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (July 1996). )).

As this matter is not of Community competence, it was never raised in the discussions between the Commission and the United States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2006/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Olive trees in Spain

According to the information available to the Commission, how many olive trees are currently growing in Spain?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2006/96, E-2007/96, E-2008/96, E-2009/96, E-2010/96, E-2011/96, E-2012/96 and E-2013/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

Statistics for olive cultivation coming from different sources tend to vary considerably depending on the definitions on which they are based, and need to be treated with caution. However, on the specific points requested by the Honourable Member, the following figures may be advanced.

The total number of productive olive trees in each of the Member States in question, according to the official returns received by the Commission from the national authorities for the purposes of setting annual fruit and oil yields for the 1994/95 marketing year, was as follows:

>TABLE>

The average density of olive plantations in those Member States (trees per hectare) is:

>TABLE>

The average density thus varies considerably between Member States and may also vary significantly from region to region - or even farm to farm - within Member States, depending on the degree of local specialization or industrialization of olive growers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1856/96 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Weekend driving bans in Hungary

Is the Commission aware that since 1 June 1996 there has been a ban on the driving of trucks in Hungary at the weekend, which according to the Hungarians is intended to reduce damage to the environment, and that customs officers on both sides of the border were already refusing to let trucks through well before the weekend began, namely on Thursday, 6 June?

Is the Commission aware that this led to a queue of hundreds of trucks forming between the border crossing points of Romania and Hungary, and that as a result many truck-drivers, including about a hundred from the Netherlands, were compelled to wait about for hours in appalling conditions, namely in temperatures around 40° Centigrade and without sanitation or restaurant facilities?

Does the Commission agree that traffic jams actually increase pollution and that spreading freight transport over the whole week helps to keep traffic on the move, thus causing less damage to the environment?

With a view to the enlargement of the European Union to include Eastern European countries, where the long waiting times are caused partly by the poor training and equipment of customs officers, will the Commission ensure that, before accession, the new Member States have to provide guarantees that the borders will be as open as possible, to prevent any repetition of these conditions, which are so hard on drivers and bad for the environment?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The Commission is aware of the problems caused by the Hungarian government's decision to ban heavy goods traffic on its territory at weekends. Using the machinery established by the Europe Agreement, the Commission will be contacting the Hungarian authorities as soon as possible to obtain a detailed account of the grounds for their decision and, where appropriate, consider alternative solutions.

The Commission believes that the build-up of long tailbacks at border crossings is undesirable from all standpoints. It likewise believes that the problems in question can be resolved by a series of coordinated measures.

Aware of shortcomings at several border crossings in central and eastern Europe, the Commission has launched schemes under the PHARE programme to improve them. One of the benefits will be improved traffic flow.

In Hungary, PHARE is currently funding projects to rehabilitate a number of border crossings. The projects also include crossing points between Hungary and Romania, in particular Artand and Gyula. The different projects to improve infrastructure (expansion, new parking areas, customs facilities etc.), modernize facilities for customs and vehicle inspections, provide technical assistance and training are aimed at bringing the Hungarian customs system closer to the Community's.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Data relating to the Thorp reprocessing plant in the UK

Can the Commission indicate whether the data supplied to it in relation to the Thorp reprocessing plant, by the UK Government and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), is available for inspection by either Parliament and/or the general public?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the data submitted to it in line with Commission Regulation (EEC) N° 3227/76 ((OJ L 363, 31.12.1976. )) in relation to the Thorp reprocessing plant are classified information and therefore may not, with reference to Article 194 of the Euratom Treaty, be released to the Parliament or the general public.

General data communicated under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty are also received in confidence by the Commission. Any decision to release such data is therefore for the Member State in question and not for the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/96 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)

On 27 June 1994 the Commission defined high-risk animal products and recognized treatments to inactivate the BSE agent. However in its decision of 6 March 1995 it stated that 'it is not possible at present to define processes which can guarantee total inactivation of the [TSSE] agents in the commercial rendering industry'.

1. In view of the fact that these decisions were motivated by health concerns, has the Commission assessed the risks which were taken in the past on account of changes to the assessment of scientific evidence? To what extent does the Commission intend to take responsibility for risks to human health as a result of such changes?

In view of the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen,

2. What new information has the Commission obtained that enables it to put forward a proposal for the partial lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen from the United Kingdom?

3. Can the Commission forward the scientific evidence it holds which enables it to put forward a proposal for the partial lifting of the ban? Can the Commission forward a description of the new scientific experiments carried out and the results thereof and say who carried them out and what the relevant scientific bodies' assessment of them is?

4. Does the Commission regard as sufficient the evidence forwarded to it by economic operators with interests in the sector (reports drawn up by gelatine manufacturers' associations)?

5. Can the Commission submit the relevant scientific bodies' assessment of the implementation of the plan to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom?

6. In the Commission's proposal, has the scientific evidence relating to consumer protection outweighed political pressure exerted by the United Kingdom, or vice versa?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)

The Commission is studying the issues presented by the Honourable Member and will reply once the results are available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2625/96 by Stefano De Luca (UPE), Marco Formentini (ELDR), Luigi Moretti (ELDR), Carlo Secchi (PPE), Riccardo Garosci (UPE), Giacomo Santini (UPE) and Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Breach of parliamentary privilege by the Italian Judicial Police

News reports that Milan Judicial Police officials conducting a search of the headquarters of a political party assaulted and abused a number of Members of the Italian and the European Parliaments, and searched MPs' offices without obtaining prior authorization from the respective parliaments, give considerable cause for concern regardless of the merits of the investigation in question.

Does the Commission of the European Union intend, therefore, if press accounts of these events are confirmed, to complain to the Italian government about this serious incident, which reflects the general trend among some judicial investigative authorities to seek to attain political ends and power by means of criminal investigation procedures, thus weakening democratic institutions and undermining public confidence in them? This kind of action also endangers the delicate balance between state powers enshrined in the Italian constitution, with serious and alarming consequences for the preservation of political freedoms.

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1996)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1872/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: The Atlanta Olympics

Can the Commission state the exact amount of the EU's contribution from the Community budget to the Olympic Games in Atlanta?

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

No direct support from the Community budget was granted to the Olympic games in Atlanta.

On the other hand the Commission (European Community humanitarian office) has undertaken to commit 3.9 mecu to Atlanta Olympic aid 1996, the humanitarian programme connected with the Atlanta Olympic games.

With regard to the paralympic games, the Olympic games for people with disabilities, the Commission is making a financial contribution of 350 000 ECU to the teams from the Member States, about 1 200 athletes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Tuberculosis emergency in Italy

In Written Question P-0831/96 I pointed out that the increase in infectious diseases - including tuberculosis, which was thought to have been eradicated - has taken on worrying proportions in certain areas and certain countries.

Data contained in the latest report by the ISS (Higher Institute of Health) and the WHO (World Health Organization) are further cause for concern and call for swift action.

In Italy, tuberculosis affects about 18 000 people a year. Health workers are talking of an emergency, since these cases are often resistant to some molecules or sometimes all the molecules contained in the antibiotics currently on sale.

We are not talking about deaths in Third World countries but in cities such as Turin, Milan, Genoa and New York.

The spread of AIDS and, to a certain extent, the 'immigration factor' make the problem more serious.

1. Does the Commission consider that it should insist that health checks at European borders be tightened up?

2. Can it urge national health authorities to step up the prevention and treatment of easily spread infectious diseases?

3. Can it launch a European project for the prevention of such diseases?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

Tuberculosis is an important public health problem. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that more than 30 million people will die of tuberculosis over the next ten years, if current trends persist. A further cause for concern is the appearance of forms which are resistant to the types of treatment used at present.

1. Tuberculosis, like all other infectious diseases, does not stop at national borders. It is therefore unrealistic to think that the problem can be controlled by health checks at Community borders. Furthermore, such checks are the responsibility of each Member State.

2. In each Member State the problem of tuberculosis prevention and treatment constitutes a major aspect of public health programmes. At Commission level, tuberculosis prevention projects can be financed under the programme on 'AIDS and certain other communicable diseases' ((OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )). A study relating to the monitoring of this problem at European level will be financed as one of the projects approved for 1996.

3. The Commission has tabled a proposal for a Decision creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community ((OJ C 123, 26.4.1996. )). Tuberculosis is included in the list of diseases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1893/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Homeworking

Given the large number of exploited homeworkers, mainly women, why has the Commission backed down on its written undertaking to bring forward a recommendation on homeworking?

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

The Commission has fully recognised the need to strive at European level to improve the working conditions of the large number of homeworkers by including homeworking in the priorities for social policy in the Commission's medium term social action programme (1995/1997) ((COM(95) 134. )).

The Commission recommendation which was announced in this action programme had to be postponed to await the completion of International labour organisation (ILO) activities in this field. In the light of the outcome of the ILO conference of last June at which an international convention and a recommendation on homeworking were adopted, the Commission will re-examine its approach to take into account those recent developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2301/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Target times for payments of disability NGO grants under Helios 2

Does the Commission have target times for payments of disability NGO grants under the Helios 2 programme? Can it also explain why there are substantial delays in payments of NGO grants which are causing severe disruption in the NGO part of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)

In accordance with the conditions set out in any grant contract, payments are made within a 60-day period starting with signature of the contract by both parties. The delays referred to are essentially due to the fact that public funds are being allocated, and certain financial controls are required in such cases to ensure that the money is being properly used in a manner consistent with the principles of good financial management.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2562/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Decisions taken by the Commission on the basis of Articles 92 and 7 of the Treaty in the audiovisual and cinematographic sector

Having regard to Article 92 and Article 7 of the Treaty, will the Commission state what decisions it has taken on the basis thereof in the audiovisual and cinematographic sector?

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

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2067/96 by Fernand Herman (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Counterfeit goods

Have all Member States designated the services competent to receive and deal with applications to the customs authorities pursuant to Article 3(8) of 'counterfeit goods' Regulation 3295/94 ((OJ L 341, 30.12.1994, p. 8. )) of 22 December 1994?

What are the names and addresses of those services?

The Belgian customs authorities for instance tell holders of rights that there is no possibility of appeal when counterfeit goods are seized.

Has the Commission abandoned its duty to ensure that the Member States properly apply Union regulations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1996)

Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit or pirated goods and the associated Commission implementing regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1367/95 ((OJ L 133, 17 June 1995. ))) have been in force since 1 July 1995.

In accordance with Article 3(8) of the basic regulation and Article 5(1) of the implementing regulation, the Member States have sent the Commission the names and addresses of the departments to which owners of the relevant intellectual property rights or their representatives should apply for action to be taken. We are forwarding the list to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat direct.

As regards the problems with Belgian customs referred to by the Honourable Member. the Commission will enquire into the circumstances and if necessary initiate proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty. As far as it is aware, however, holders of intellectual property rights are entitled to appeal to the Belgian courts against a refusal of customs to take action. The courts are competent to hear actions against any breach of intellectual property rights.